Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Characterizing Network Structure of Anti-Trans Actors on TikTok

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Anti-trans TikTok users disproportionately direct replies, tags, duets, and stitches at pro-trans users.

desk verdict Valuable taxonomy, but the classifier is evaluated on the same 300 samples used to build and tune it, so the network findings that rest on those labels are not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16507 v1 pith:RQ7AAB5W submitted 2025-01-27 cs.HC cs.AIcs.SI

Maxyn Leitner , Rebecca Dorn , Fred Morstatter , Kristina Lerman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.SI
keywords TikTokOnlineHarassmentComputationalSocialScienceClassificationNetworkanalysisRetrieval-AugmentedGeneration(RAG)Largelanguagemodels(LLMs)CommunityDynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that anti-trans actors on TikTok are not sealed off in their own echo chamber: they disproportionately direct replies, tags, duets, and stitches at pro-trans users, a pattern the authors interpret as targeting of trans individuals. To reach this conclusion, the authors build a three-tier taxonomy of sentiment toward trans and nonbinary people, hire trans/nonbinary annotators to label 300 TikTok videos, and feed the taxonomy plus annotated examples into a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) classifier built on LLaMA 3, which then labels the larger unannotated video set and its interaction networks. The network analysis shows anti-trans users outnumber pro-trans users about 5 to 1 in tag/reply interactions and 2.5 to 1 in duet/stitch interactions, with reply-network assortativity of −0.79 (−0.93 when neutral nodes are excluded). The same pipeline yields a secondary result: adding the taxonomy to the RAG prompts raises overall classification accuracy from 0.47 (zero-shot LLaMA 3) to 0.67, and nearly triples recall for pro-trans content. If the network finding holds, it points to concrete moderation targets: anti-trans accounts that initiate cross-community interactions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three coupled components. The first is a sentiment taxonomy that classifies content as Pro-Trans, Anti-Trans, or Neutral, with anti-trans subcategories for transmisogyny, anti-transmasculinity/transandrophobia, exorsexism, TERF, right-wing, and intracommunity sentiment, and pro-trans subcategories such as celebration of trans existence and refutation of anti-trans rhetoric. The second is a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline: LLaMA 3 classifies a TikTok's transcription and description, and the prompt is augmented by retrieving relevant annotated examples and taxonomy definitions from an index, which measurably improves accuracy. The third is network analysis of four TikTok interaction types—tags, replies, duets, and stitches—where node labels come from the classifier and edge structure is summarized by assortativity and by the ratio of anti-trans-to-pro-trans edges; the very negative assortativity values are what license the targeting interpretation.

What would settle it

Run a strict train/test evaluation: split the 300 annotated videos into disjoint training and test sets, build the RAG retrieval database only from the training set, select the best prompt on the training set, report accuracy on the test set, then recompute the reply-network assortativity and the anti-to-pro interaction ratios using the corrected node labels. If test-set accuracy drops materially below 0.67 or the network statistics lose their strong negative assortativity, the targeting conclusion does not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reply networks connecting pro-trans and anti-trans TikTok creators are strongly disassortative: anti-trans actors are far more likely to initiate interaction with pro-trans users than with each other, while pro-trans users tend to appear as isolated nodes or in tight-knit clusters. The authors read this structural pattern as evidence of targeting—anti-trans actors attacking trans individuals—rather than two communities simply ignoring each other. The paper's supporting discovery is that its taxonomy-enhanced RAG classifier distinguishes pro-trans, anti-trans, and neutral content better than the base LLaMA 3 model, particularly by recovering 'celebration of trans existence' content that the base model mislabels as neutral; overall accuracy rises from 0.47 to 0.67 when annotated examples and taxonomy definitions are retrieved and appended to the prompt.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the classifier's labels for the unannotated network are accurate, but the reported accuracy may be inflated because the same annotated set is used to build the retrieval database, select the prompt, and evaluate the model, with no held-out test split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the network finding holds, content moderation systems should prioritize anti-trans accounts that repeatedly initiate replies, duets, and stitches with pro-trans creators, since those edges are the primary site of cross-community harassment.
  • The taxonomy gives platforms a finer-grained vocabulary—transmisogyny, anti-transmasculinity, exorsexism—so automated systems can distinguish distinct harms instead of lumping all anti-trans content together.
  • The RAG-with-taxonomy result suggests that expert-curated definitions and examples can substantially improve LLM classification of identity-related marginal content without fine-tuning, an approach that transfers to other marginalized communities.
  • The low assortativity values imply anti-trans content bridges into pro-trans and neutral spaces rather than circulating in a segregated network, which may explain why trans users report being served content that maligns their identity.
  • The biggest remaining error mode is over-flagging neutral content as anti-trans (anti-trans precision drops to 0.37 in the taxonomy model), so delineating neutral from anti-trans content is a concrete next target.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The hashtag-seeded snowball sample skews toward activist-adjacent and dog-whistle content; a replication sampling TikTok's For You feed without hashtag filters would test whether the 5-to-1 ratio and negative assortativity generalize beyond hashtag-driven communities.
  • Because the paper labels videos but not the direction of the initiating action at edge level, a finer-grained audit that verifies which user created the duet, stitch, or reply would strengthen the causal reading that anti-trans actors are the aggressors rather than the responders.
  • The taxonomy's sublabels could drive a follow-up analysis of which specific anti-trans categories (e.g., transmisogyny versus exorsexism) account for most cross-community edges, enabling targeted interventions rather than whole-community moderation.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to other short-form video platforms (Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts) to test whether the targeting structure is a TikTok-specific algorithmic outcome or a general property of short-form video ecosystems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a taxonomy of pro-trans, anti-trans, and neutral sentiment on TikTok, builds an LLM-based classifier that combines Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with annotated examples and taxonomy definitions, and applies this classifier to label reply networks among TikTok users. The authors report that anti-trans users outnumber pro-trans users by about 5:1 in tags/replies and 2.5:1 in duets/stitches, and that assortativity is very low (reply = -0.79), interpreting this as evidence that anti-trans actors target pro-trans users. The paper also discusses the taxonomy, annotation process, classification results, and limitations.

Significance. If the classification pipeline and network analysis were methodologically sound, the paper would make a useful contribution: the taxonomy is grounded in relevant sociological and gender-studies literature, the RAG approach is interesting, and the network-level characterization of anti-trans and pro-trans interactions on TikTok addresses an important and understudied topic. The authors also provide ethical safeguards, a datasheet, and a positionality statement. However, the validity of the empirical claims, especially the central network finding, depends entirely on the classifier label quality, and the current evaluation does not establish that validity.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.4.1 and §5.1] The reported classification accuracy is not a valid estimate of generalization because the prompt selection uses all 300 labeled samples. Section 4.4.1 states that 'we also kept track of which prompt performed the best over all samples, and it was that prompt we used for the following approaches.' Section 5.1 then evaluates the model on the same 300 samples. This means the best prompt is selected using test labels, so the improvement shown in Table 2 (e.g., accuracy 0.47 to 0.67) is confounded by prompt selection on the evaluation set.
  2. [§4.4.2 and §5.1] No train/test split is described for the RAG retrieval database. In Section 4.4.2, annotated examples are indexed into the retrieval database, and Section 5.1 reports performance on the same n=300 annotated set. If a test item itself, or a near-duplicate, is retrieved as context, the model may effectively memorize the label. The paper does not state that test items are excluded from the retrieval database, so the reported accuracy of the RAG models is potentially circular and cannot be used to support the subsequent network labels.
  3. [§5.2 and §6.1] The network analysis depends on labels produced by the LLaMA3+RAG Examples+RAG Taxonomy classifier applied to unannotated network samples, but that classifier has precision of only 0.37 for the anti-trans class (Table 2) and the authors acknowledge in Section 6.1 that the model has a larger false positive rate for anti-trans classification, flagging neutral content as anti-trans. Consequently, the anti-trans node population in Figure 4 is likely inflated, which directly undermines the reported anti-to-pro ratios (5:1 and 2.5:1) and the low assortativity values. The central network claim in the abstract and Section 6.2 therefore lacks a trustworthy labeling foundation.
  4. [Table 2] The sublabel recall values are based on very small counts. For example, the INTRA sublabel has a proportion of 0.01 of the sample, which corresponds to roughly 3 instances in the 300-sample set, yet the model reports recall of 1.00 for this sublabel in the RAG Samples model. Such values are not meaningful and should be reported with confidence intervals or excluded. This issue applies to several other sublabels with proportion ≤ 0.07 (e.g., XOR, TERF).
  5. [Abstract and §4.3.2] The abstract describes 'hired expert data annotators from the trans/nonbinary community,' but Section 4.3.2 states that the annotation team consists of two internal researchers who are members of the trans/non-binary community. This is a factual inconsistency that affects the paper's claims about external annotation expertise and should be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'and that Results from network analysis indicate...' contains an awkward capitalization/grammar error; 'Results' should not be capitalized mid-sentence.
  2. [§5.2] The description of the network experiments is incomplete: the paper does not report the number of nodes and edges in the largest connected components, the proportion of nodes with labels, or how neutral nodes are treated when computing assortativity. These details are needed to interpret the network statistics.
  3. [§4.4.3] The name 'LLaMA3+RAG Examples+RAG Taxonomy' is inconsistent with the model name 'LLaMA3+RAG Samples+RAG Taxonomy' used in Table 2; please standardize the notation.
  4. [References] Several references have duplicated author names, for example reference [21] lists 'Claudiu Gabriel Ionescu and Monica Licu' correctly but reference [29] repeats 'Ellen Simpson, Ellen Simpson' and 'Bryan Semaan, Bryan Semaan.' These should be cleaned up.
  5. [§4.3.2] The paper should specify how disagreements between the two annotators were resolved, given the reported Cohen's Kappa of 0.64 on the 50-sample subset.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Classification evaluation is in-sample: prompt selection and RAG retrieval database use the annotated examples that are then scored, so reported accuracy does not validate the labels driving the network results.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4.1 (LLaMA3 prompt selection); Section 5.1.1 and Table 2 (same-sample evaluation)]
    "We compared the ensembled labels to the ground truth labels for each sample, evaluating the model's recall, precision, F1, along with constructing a confusion matrix of the three classes We also kept track of which prompt performed the best over all samples, and it was that prompt we used for the following approaches."

    The best prompt is chosen by its aggregate performance on the full 300-sample annotated set, and that same set is then used to report accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 in Table 2. The reported 0.67 accuracy and the comparisons across model variants are therefore fitting statistics computed on the training/evaluation set, not held-out predictions; the 'best' configuration is selected using the very labels it is later scored against.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4.2 (RAG database) with Sections 5.1.2-5.1.3 and 5.2 (same-sample scores and downstream network labels)]
    "In LLaMA3+RAG Examples, we index annotated examples into two primary buckets: Anti-Trans and Pro-Trans. Examples are matched to inputs based on the cosine similarity of their representations, and anywhere from 0 to 3 examples can be matched."

    The RAG retrieval database is populated with the same annotated examples that Table 2 scores. When a test item is itself indexed as a retrieval example, its ground-truth label (or a near-duplicate of it) can be retrieved as context, so the reported accuracy partly measures label memorization rather than classification skill. Section 5.2 then applies this same unvalidated pipeline to label unannotated network nodes, so the anti-to-pro ratios (5:1 and 2.5:1) and assortativity values rest on a classifier whose only reported accuracy is in-sample and whose anti-trans precision is 0.37; the downstream network statistics are not independently validated.

full rationale

The clearest circularity is in the classifier evaluation, not in the network mathematics. The prompt is selected on the full annotated set, the RAG memory is built from the same annotated set, and the reported metrics are computed on that set; accuracy and model-comparison claims therefore reduce to in-sample fitting. The network statistics themselves are not tautologically forced by the annotation set (the annotated sample is pro-heavy, while the network is reported anti-heavy), so the headline ratio is a genuine, though unvalidated, computation. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. However, because the central network claim depends entirely on labels produced by a pipeline whose only evidence is contaminated, the paper earns a 6: partial circularity in the predictive evidence, with the central claim still containing independent content that could be rescued by a proper held-out evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on a hand-built taxonomy, a small annotation set labeled by two researchers (one labeling 250 of 300 samples solo), a classifier whose evaluation does not describe a train/test split, and a network analysis that inherits the classifier's labels. The taxonomy categories and retrieval assumptions are domain assumptions rather than standard mathematical axioms.

free parameters (2)
  • RAG retrieval k = 0 to 3 examples (maximum 3)
    Section 4.4.2 states that anywhere from 0 to 3 examples can be matched. This choice is not tuned on a held-out set but directly shapes the prompt and the reported accuracy.
  • LLM prompt selection = The single best prompt among 8, chosen on all 300 annotated samples
    Section 4.4.1: 'we also kept track of which prompt performed the best over all samples, and it was that prompt we used for the following approaches.' This is a parameter fitted to the evaluation data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The taxonomy's categories and definitions (Section 3) are a valid and complete representation of trans-related sentiment on TikTok.
    The taxonomy is derived from literature and observed data, but is not validated against an external benchmark or a broader set of annotators.
  • domain assumption The labels assigned by the two researcher-annotators (one labeled all 300, the other 50) constitute ground truth.
    Section 4.3.2 reports Cohen's kappa 0.64, which is moderate, and one annotator's labels on 250 samples are never independently checked.
  • domain assumption The Whisper transcription plus video description contains enough signal to classify video sentiment.
    Section 4.4 relies on this without analyzing transcription errors or cases where audio or description is missing.
  • domain assumption The hashtag-based snowball sample is representative of pro/anti-trans content on TikTok.
    Section 4.1 uses manually chosen seed hashtags and retains videos whose download failed (31.7%), which may bias the sample.
  • domain assumption Edges in the reply/tag/duet/stitch networks represent meaningful interactions between users.
    Section 4.2 groups these interaction types and acknowledges that tags may be non-interactive and display-name resolution errors occur.
  • domain assumption The cosine-similarity retrieval in LlamaIndex returns the most useful examples and taxonomy concepts for classification.
    Section 4.4.2 does not evaluate retrieval quality separately, and the number of retrieved examples is not tuned on a held-out set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing Network Structure of Anti-Trans Actors on TikTok." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQ7AAB5W

@misc{pith2026250116507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing Network Structure of Anti-Trans Actors on TikTok},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQ7AAB5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16507}
}
read the original abstract

The recent proliferation of short form video social media sites such as TikTok has been effectively utilized for increased visibility, communication, and community connection amongst trans/nonbinary creators online. However, these same platforms have also been exploited by right-wing actors targeting trans/nonbinary people, enabling such anti-trans actors to efficiently spread hate speech and propaganda. Given these divergent groups, what are the differences in network structure between anti-trans and pro-trans communities on TikTok, and to what extent do they amplify the effects of anti-trans content? In this paper, we collect a sample of TikTok videos containing pro and anti-trans content, and develop a taxonomy of trans related sentiment to enable the classification of content on TikTok, and ultimately analyze the reply network structures of pro-trans and anti-trans communities. In order to accomplish this, we worked with hired expert data annotators from the trans/nonbinary community in order to generate a sample of highly accurately labeled data. From this subset, we utilized a novel classification pipeline leveraging Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with annotated examples and taxonomy definitions to classify content into pro-trans, anti-trans, or neutral categories. We find that incorporating our taxonomy and its logics into our classification engine results in improved ability to differentiate trans related content, and that Results from network analysis indicate many interactions between posters of pro-trans and anti-trans content exist, further demonstrating targeting of trans individuals, and demonstrating the need for better content moderation tools

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trans Sentiment Taxonomy. 3.1 The Trans Sentiment Taxonomy This taxonomy categorizes sentiment towards trans and gender diverse populations, making distinctions between subgroups and accounting for microaggression rhetoric. We present an overview of our taxonomy here. At the top level of our taxonomy, we have three categories: Pro-Trans, Anti-Trans, and Neutral. Each category houses sub-categories. 3.1.1 Pro-Trans. … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. 4.3 Annotation In order to accurately and ethically label our sample data, we follow recommendations in formulating our task, selecting our annota￾tors, considering platform and infrastructure choices, as well as analyzing and evaluating our data [24]. 4.3.1 Annotation Set-Up. We compile our labeled dataset by ran￾domly selected 100 samples from each of the following: TikToks that contained only Pro-Trans hashtags, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline detailing utilization of RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation). Before the model is prompted, relevant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Classifier Confusion Matrices score > 0.5. When we examine recall by sublabel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Labeled Networks (anti-trans nodes/edges in red, pro-trans in green, neutral in black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Miriam J Abelson. 2014. Dangerous privilege: Trans men, masculinities, and changing perceptions of safety. In Sociological Forum , Vol. 29. Wiley Online Library, 549–570

    2014

  2. [2]

    Dana T Ahern. 2024. Teaching transgender studies: Experiential knowledge and race. In Feminists Talk Whiteness. Routledge, 276–287

    2024

  3. [3]

    Daniele Albertazzi and Donatella Bonansinga. 2024. Beyond anger: the populist radical right on TikTok. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 32, 3 (July 2024), 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2022.2163380

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Wit- comb

    Zoë Aldridge, Hilary McDermott, Nat Thorne, Jon Arcelus, and Gemma L. Wit- comb. 2024. Social Media Creations of Community and Gender Minority Stress in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adults. Social Sciences 13, 9 (Sept. 2024),

    2024

  5. [5]

    Amelio Robles Ávila. 2023. LGBTQ History Month Week 1: Transmasculinity (Invisibility & Illumination). https://lgbtqhistory.org/lgbtq-history-month-week- 1-transmasculinity-invisibility-illumination/. Accessed: 2024-11-27

    2023

  6. [6]

    Trina Banerjee and K Jayasankara Reddy. 2024. “Trans”-Ness and Shaming: A Thematic Analysis of Shame Among South Asian Transmen/Transmasc. In Shame and Gender in Transcultural Contexts: Resourceful Investigations . Springer, 211–234

    2024

  7. [7]

    Serena Bassi and Greta LaFleur. 2022. Introduction: TERFs, gender-critical movements, and postfascist feminisms. , 311–333 pages

    2022

  8. [8]

    I Don’t Think This Is Theoretical; This Is Our Lives

    Greta R. Bauer, Rebecca Hammond, Robb Travers, Matthias Kaay, Karin M. Hohenadel, and Michelle Boyce. 2009. “I Don’t Think This Is Theoretical; This Is Our Lives”: How Erasure Impacts Health Care for Transgender People. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 20, 5 (Sept. 2009), 348–361. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2009.07.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jana.2009.07.004 2009

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Elizabeth Beck, Kristie Seelman, Moon Charania, Susan M Snyder, and Sophie Saffan. 2024. Reproductive Justice, Bodily Autonomy, and State Violence. Affilia (2024), 08861099231225226

    2024

  2. [10]

    edxi betts, NZ Suékama, and Ren-yo Hwang. 2024. Black Transfeminist Anar- chism. TSQ 11, 1 (2024), 34–65

    2024

  3. [11]

    Gender-Critical

    Thomas J Billard. 2023. “Gender-Critical” Discourse as Disinformation: Unpack- ing TERF Strategies of Political Communication. Women’s Studies in Communica- tion 46, 2 (April 2023), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2023.2193545

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kristin Binder. 2023. Body Normativity and the Hyper(in)visibility of Abject Bodies: Living with Oppression in the Body Liberation Movement . Master’s thesis. University of Gothenburg. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/75972 Available online: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/75972

    2023

  5. [13]

    Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts

    Caroline Blyth and Prior McRae. 2018. “Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts”: Transphobia, Symbolic Violence, and Conservative Christian Discourse. In Rape Culture, Gender Violence, and Religion , Caroline Blyth, Emily Colgan, and Katie B. Edwards (Eds.). Springer International Publ...

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2022.Down the TikTok rabbit hole: Testing the TikTok algorithm’s contribution to right wing extremist radicalization

    Vincent Boucher. 2022.Down the TikTok rabbit hole: Testing the TikTok algorithm’s contribution to right wing extremist radicalization . Master’s thesis. Queen’s University (Canada)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Justin Buss, Hayden Le, and Oliver L Haimson. 2022. Transgender identity management across social media platforms. Media, Culture & Society 44, 1 (Jan. 2022), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437211027106

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Will Carless. 2023. When Libs of TikTok Tweets, Threats Increasingly Follow. Yahoo News (2023). https://www.yahoo.com/news/libs-tiktok-tweets-threats- increasingly-101232692.html Accessed: 2024-12-04

    2023

  9. [17]

    Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi, Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi, Adeep Hande, Adeep Hande, Rahul Ponnusamy, Rahul Ponnusamy, Prasanna Kumar Kumaresan, Prasanna Kumar Kumaresan, Ruba Priyadharshini, and Ruba Priyadharshini

  10. [18]

    Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi, Ruba Priyadharshini, Rahul Ponnusamy, Prasanna Kumar Kumaresan, Kayalvizhi Sampath, Durairaj Thenmozhi, Sathiyaraj Thangasamy, Rajendran Nallathambi, and John Phillip McCrae. 2021. Dataset for Identification of Homophobia and Transophobia in Multili...

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Paul S Chan. 2019. Invisible gender in medical research. Circulation: Cardiovas- cular Quality and Outcomes 12, 4 (2019), e005694

    2019

  12. [20]

    Chang and Y

    Tiffany K. Chang and Y. Barry Chung. 2015. Transgender Microaggressions: Complexity of the Heterogeneity of Transgender Identities. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling 9, 3 (2015), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2015. 1068146 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605....

    2015

  13. [21]

    Claudiu Gabriel Ionescu and Monica Licu. 2023. Are TikTok Algorithms Influ- encing Users’ Self-Perceived Identities and Personal Values? A Mini Review. 12, 8 (Aug. 2023), 465–465. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080465

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Francesco Corso, Francesco Pierri, and Gianmarco De Francisci Morales. 2024. What we can learn from TikTok through its Research API. In Companion Publi- cation of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference . 110–114

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sydney Dawson. 2024. You can’t say that on TikTok: cxnsxrshxp, algorithmic (in)visibility, and the threat of representation. (2024). https://doi.org/10.14288/1. 0443761 Publisher: University of British Columbia Version Number: 1

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Remi Denton, Mark Díaz, Ian Kivlichan, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Rachel Rosen. 2021. Whose Ground Truth? Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Dataset Annotation. (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/ ARXIV.2112.04554 Version Number: 1

    2021 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Briar Dickey. 2023. Transphobic Truth Markets: Comparing Trans-hostile Dis- courses in British Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminist and US Right-wing Move- ments. DiGeSt-Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies 10, 2 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Rebecca Dorn, Lee Kezar, Fred Morstatter, and Kristina Lerman. 2024. Harmful Speech Detection by Language Models Exhibits Gender-Queer Dialect Bias. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.00020 arXiv:2406.00020 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    WEB Du Bois. 2006. Double-consciousness and the veil . Vol. 203. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

    2006

  20. [28]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ellen Simpson, Ellen Simpson, Bryan Semaan, and Bryan Semaan. 2021. For You, or For"You"?: Everyday LGBTQ+ Encounters with TikTok. 4 (2021), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432951 MAG ID: 3119733760

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Treva Ellison, Kai M Green, Matt Richardson, and C Riley Snorton. 2017. We got issues: Toward a Black trans*/studies. Transgender Studies Quarterly 4, 2 (2017), 162–169

    2017

  23. [31]

    A Finn Enke. 2012. The education of little cis. Transfeminist perspectives in and beyond transgender or gender studies (2012), 60–77

    2012

  24. [32]

    Matt Finley. 2020. Respectability politics and the rights of queer and transgender people: Critiquing an obsolete system in the 21st century.Politicus Journal (2020), 29–43. Maxyn Leitner, Rebecca Dorn, Fred Morstatter, and Kristina Lerman

    2020

  25. [33]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2024. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv:2312.10997 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jules Gill-Peterson. 2024. A short history of trans misogyny . Verso, London ; New York

    2024

  27. [35]

    Leo A. Goodman. 1961. Snowball Sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32, 1 (1961), 148–170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2237615

    1961

  28. [36]

    Ella Guest, Bertie Vidgen, Alexandros Mittos, Nishanth Sastry, Gareth Tyson, and Helen Margetts. 2021. An expert annotated dataset for the detection of online misogyny. In Proceedings of the 16th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguisti...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Holloway

    Brendon T. Holloway. 2023. Highlighting Trans Joy: A Call to Practitioners, Researchers, and Educators. Health Promotion Practice 24, 4 (2023), 612–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399231152468

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    V Jo Hsu. 2022. Irreducible damage: The affective drift of race, gender, and disability in anti-trans rhetorics. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 52, 1 (2022), 62–77

    2022

  31. [39]

    Ada Hubrig. 2023. Policing trans existence through peda-parrhesia: deploying the rhetorical child. Culture, Theory and Critique 64, 1-2 (April 2023), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2024.2366341

    2023

  32. [40]

    Braedyn D’mitri Inmon. 2023. Imagining a Post-Intentional Phenomenology of Cisnormativity: A Philosophical Inquiry . Ph. D. Dissertation. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania

    2023

  33. [41]

    You are either a man or a woman-you can’t do both

    Isak Løberg Jacobsen. 2022. " You are either a man or a woman-you can’t do both. " A critical analysis of transmasculine negotiations of pregnancy, gender and cisnormativity. Master’s thesis. NTNU

    2022

  34. [42]

    Emma Jeanes and Kirsty Janes. 2021. Trans men doing gender at work. Gender, Work & Organization 28, 4 (2021), 1237–1259

    2021

  35. [43]

    Alexander Johnson, Christina Chance, Kaycee Stiemke, Hariram Veeramani, Natarajan Balaji Shankar, and Abeer Alwan. 2023. An Analysis of Large Lan- guage Models for African American English Speaking Children’s Oral Language Assessment. Journal of Black Excellence in Engineering...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Angela Jones. 2020. Where the trans men and enbies at?: Cissexism, sexual threat, and the study of sex work. Sociology Compass 14, 2 (2020), e12750

    2020

  37. [45]

    Philip Edward Jones and Paul R. Brewer. 2020. Elite cues and public polarization on transgender rights. Politics, Groups, and Identities 8, 1 (Jan. 2020), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1441722

    2020

  38. [46]

    Mo Jones-Jang, Tara Mortensen, and Jingjing Liu

    S. Mo Jones-Jang, Tara Mortensen, and Jingjing Liu. 2021. Does Media Liter- acy Help Identification of Fake News? Information Literacy Helps, but Other Literacies Don’t. American Behavioral Scientist 65, 2 (2021), 371–388. https: //doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869406

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    John T. Jost. 2024. Both-Sideology Endangers Democracy and Social Science. Journal of Social Issues 80, 3 (Sept. 2024), 1138–1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/ josi.12633

    2024

  40. [48]

    Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Algorithmic folk theories and identity: How TikTok users co-produce Knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–44

    2021

  41. [49]

    Natacha Kennedy. 2013. Cultural cisgenderism: Consequences of the impercepti- ble. Psychology of Women Section Review 15, 2 (2013), 3–11

    2013

  42. [50]

    Vic J. Kennedy. 2023. Tight Coils: Black Transfemininity, Transhegemony, and Identity Formation in The U.S. South . Master’s thesis. Georgia State University. https://doi.org/10.57709/35544762

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Niki Khanna. 2021. Invisibility and trauma in the intersex community. Violence against LGBTQ+ persons: Research, practice, and advocacy (2021), 185–194

    2021

  44. [52]

    Khushboo Sharma, Khushboo Sharma, Arun Dev Pareek, and Arun Dev Pareek

  45. [53]

    Elías Cosenza Krell. 2017. Is transmisogyny killing trans women of color? Black trans feminisms and the exigencies of white femininity. Transgender Studies Quarterly 4, 2 (2017), 226–242

    2017

  46. [54]

    Dennis Kundisch, Jan Muntermann, Anna Maria Oberländer, Daniel Rau, Maxi- milian Röglinger, Thorsten Schoormann, and Daniel Szopinski. 2021. An update for taxonomy designers: methodological guidance from information systems research. Business & Information Systems Engineering ...

    2021

  47. [55]

    Cynthia Lee and Peter Kwan. 2014. The trans panic defense: Masculinity, het- eronormativity, and the murder of transgender women. Hastings Law Journal 66 (2014), 77

    2014

  48. [56]

    MJ Lehvä. 2023. Trans joy: a space for self-realisation, resistance and intersectional community building. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Turku

    2023

  49. [57]

    O Little, A Richards, N Beecham, C Evans, and J Tuthill. 2021. TikTok’s algorithm leads users from transphobic videos to far-right rabbit holes. Media Matters

    2021

  50. [58]

    Christina Lu and David Jurgens. 2022. The subtle language of exclusion: Identi- fying the Toxic Speech of Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists. In Proceedings of the sixth workshop on online abuse and harms (WOAH) . 79–91

    2022

  51. [59]

    Ilan H Meyer. 2003. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological bulletin 129, 5 (2003), 674

    2003

  52. [60]

    Michael Ann DeVito and Michael A. DeVito. 2022. How Transfeminine TikTok Creators Navigate the Algorithmic Trap of Visibility Via Folk Theorization. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555105

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    Zein Murib. 2022. Don’t Read the Comments: Examining Social Media Dis- course on Trans Athletes. Laws 11, 4 (July 2022), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/ laws11040053

    2022

  54. [62]

    Mahin Naderifar, Hamideh Goli, and Fereshteh Ghaljaie. 2017. Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in development of medical education 14, 3 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Megan Norris and Catrin Borneskog. 2022. The Cisnormative Blindspot Ex- plained: Healthcare Experiences of Trans Men and Non-Binary Persons and the accessibility to inclusive sexual & reproductive Healthcare, an integra- tive review. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 32 (2022),...

    2022

  56. [64]

    Nsámbu Za Suékama. 2023. Racial-Class Paternalism and the Trojan Horse of Anti-transmasculinity. https://medium.com/@riptide.1997/racial-class- paternalism-and-the-trojan-horse-of-anti-transmasculinity-5b22cf66a00e

    2023

  57. [65]

    Gabriela Pinto, Keith Burghardt, Kristina Lerman, and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. GET-Tok: A GenAI-Enriched Multimodal TikTok Dataset Documenting the 2022 Attempted Coup in Peru. arXiv:2402.05882 [cs.SI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402. 05882

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Lucas R Platero. 2023. Strange bedfellows: anti-trans feminists, VOX supporters and biologicist academics. DiGeSt-Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies 10, 2 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    If they look at me and land at he/him, it’s the consolation prize

    Lex Pulice-Farrow. 2024. “If they look at me and land at he/him, it’s the consolation prize”’: Transmasculine nonbinary individuals’ conceptualization of passing . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Tennessee. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/ 10494/ Accessed: 2024-12-04

    2024

  60. [68]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2023. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 28492–28518

    2023

  61. [69]

    Contrary to all the other shit I’ve said

    Baker A Rogers. 2019. “Contrary to all the other shit I’ve said”: Trans men passing in the south. Qualitative Sociology 42, 4 (2019), 639–662

    2019

  62. [70]

    Lauren Rosewarne. 2023. The good transsexual? The Buck Angel dilemmas. Porn Studies 0, 0 (2023), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2023.2221252 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2023.2221252

    2023

  63. [71]

    Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Alex Hanna, and Emily Denton. 2021. Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Development. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–37. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3476058

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    Samantha Schmidt. 2020. Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: radical feminists. The Washington Post (2020), NA–NA

    2020

  65. [73]

    Irina Schmitt. 2019. Understanding cis-normativity in higher education class- rooms. In Lund University’s Teaching and Learning Conference 2019

    2019

  66. [74]

    Julia Serano. 2016. Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scape- goating of femininity. Hachette UK

    2016

  67. [75]

    Stef M Shuster and Laurel Westbrook. 2022. Reducing the Joy Deficit in Sociology: A Study of Transgender Joy. Social Problems 71, 3 (June 2022), 791–809. https: //doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spac034

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    Julia Srouji. 2022. Transgender TikTok: Analyzing Insider and Outsider Perspectives of a Heavily Debated Topic . Ph. D. Dissertation. Concordia University

    2022

  69. [77]

    Protect the women!

    Stuart J. Turnbull-Dugarte and Fraser McMillan. 2023. “Protect the women!” Trans-exclusionary feminist issue framing and support for transgender rights. Policy Studies Journal 51, 3 (Aug. 2023), 629–666

    2023

  70. [78]

    Alok Vaid-Menon and Janani Balasubramanian. 2014. Trans Activism in the Wake of the Darren Wilson Verdict. Guest lecture, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, November 25 (2014)

    2014

  71. [79]

    Vergess. 2016. XOR Gender Chart. https://vergess.tumblr.com/post/ 143919554200/xor-gender-chart

    2016

  72. [80]

    David L Wallace. 2002. Out in the academy: Heterosexism, invisibility, and double consciousness. College English 65, 1 (2002), 53–66

    2002

  73. [81]

    Zeerak Waseem. 2016. Are You a Racist or Am I Seeing Things? Annotator Influence on Hate Speech Detection on Twitter. In Proceedings of the First Work- shop on NLP and Computational Social Science . Association for Computational Linguistics, Austin, Texas, 138–142. https://doi...

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    Gabriel Weimann and Natalie Masri. 2023. Research Note: Spreading Hate on TikTok. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 46, 5 (May 2023), 752–765. https: //doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2020.1780027

    2023

  75. [83]

    Laurel Westbrook and Stef M Shuster. 2023. Transgender joy: flipping the script of marginality. Contexts 22, 4 (2023), 16–21

    2023

  76. [84]

    Meredith GF Worthen. 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 (2021), 343–356. Characterizing Network Structure of Anti-Trans Actors ...

    2021

  77. [85]

    Xuhui Zhou, Hao Zhu, Akhila Yerukola, Thomas Davidson, Jena D Hwang, Swabha Swayamdipta, and Maarten Sap. 2023. COBRA Frames: Contextual Reasoning about Effects and Harms of Offensive Statements. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 . 6294–6315

    2023

  78. [86]

    Bruno Zirnstein. 2023. Extended context for InstructGPT with LlamaIndex . Tech- nical Report. Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin

    2023

  79. [483]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13090483

    doi

  80. [2021]

    Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities 13, 2 (June 2021)

    Tactics of Survival: Social Media, Alternative Discourses, and the Rise of Trans Narratives. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities 13, 2 (June 2021). https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v13n2.44 MAG ID: 3176793687 S2ID: b197ef5a2e36d6d3076fb787b5dcc470e85e647c

    2021 doi

  81. [2022]

    International journal of information management data insights 2, 2 (Nov

    How can we detect Homophobia and Transphobia? Experiments in a multilingual code-mixed setting for social media governance. International journal of information management data insights 2, 2 (Nov. 2022), 100119– 100119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100119 MAG ID: 4296...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.