Transgender fathering: Children's psychological and family outcomes.

Medical advances in assisted reproductive technology have created new ways for transgender persons to become parents outside the context of adoption. The limited empirical data does not support the idea that trans-parenthood negatively impacts children's development. However, the question has led to lively societal debates making the need for evidence-based studies urgent. We aimed to compare cognitive development, mental health, gender identity, quality of life and family dynamics using standardized instruments and experimental protocols in 32 children who were conceived by donor sperm insemination (DSI) in French couples with a cisgender woman and a transgender man, the transition occurring before conception. We constituted two control groups matched for age, gender and family status. We found no significant difference between groups regarding cognitive development, mental health, and gender identity, meaning that neither the transgender fatherhood nor the use of DSI had any impact on these characteristics. The results of the descriptive analysis showed positive psycho-emotional development. Additionally, when we asked raters to differentiate the family drawings of the group of children of trans-fathers from those who were naturally conceived, no rater was able to differentiate the groups above chance levels, meaning that what children expressed through family drawing did not indicate cues related to trans-fatherhood. However, when we assessed mothers and fathers with the Five-Minute Speech Sample, we found that the emotions expressed by transgender fathers were higher than those of cisgender fathers who conceived by sex or by DSI. We conclude that the first empirical data regarding child development in the context of trans-parenthood are reassuring. We believe that this research will also improve transgender couple care and that of their children in a society where access to care remains difficult in this population. However, further research is needed with adolescents and young adults.

Introduction

For years, individuals and couples with fertility issues have been able to conceive thanks to biomedical technology advances [1]. These medical advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART) have created new ways for transgender persons to become parents outside the context of adoption [2]. Becoming a parent is a major life experience for human beings, and many trans people want to become parents [2]. However, hormone/surgical treatments that can benefit transgender people are potentially sterilizing. Currently, it remains technically impossible to develop the capacity to procreate after gender affirming surgery that involves removal of gonads, but it is possible to help trans people use their own gametes with assisted reproductive technology (ART). Trans parenthood is therefore possible through adoption but also through other paths, including using trans person’s own gametes. Therefore, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommends discussing fertility options with patients before any treatment or medical and/or surgical interventions [3].

Heterosexual couples in which the male partner is a transgender man can turn to ART through artificial insemination with donor sperm insemination (DSI). For these couples, other possibilities are theoretically available. If the transgender man has self-conserved his oocytes/ovarian tissue before transition, or has retained his uterus and ovaries, the couple may consider using his eggs or ovarian tissue for his uterus-bearing partner, or he may consider pregnancy. Transgender women who have a male partner may ask for the help of a surrogate mother in countries where this is allowed and if this surrogate is not also a donor of her own oocytes for egg donation. In the first case, if the transgender man has self-conserved his oocytes/ovarian tissue before the transition, the couple may consider crossover in vitro fertilization (IVF) meaning that the transgender man provides oocytes that are microinjected with sperm of a male donor to obtain embryos that are transferred to his partner. In the second case, the preserved sperm of the transgender woman can similarly be used to fertilize donated oocytes for all or part of the offspring. Other combinations are possible in the case of gay couples [4]. However, these options are not available in many countries, as they are framed by laws and bioethics regulations, which can vary from one country to another.

In France, the transgender community is facing ostracism and each progress comes after long and conflicting debates in the society. For example, the law prohibits surrogacy, and ART was granted to heterosexual couples only until the House of Representatives changed the law in October 2019. The Senate still has to approve the new law, and ART will soon be open to couples of women and to single women, but this recent revision does not take into account the situation of transgender persons. Currently, the only option available to trans people in France is DSI for heterosexual couples in which one of the partners is a transgender man. The number of transgender people and transparent families has been estimated in France from the number of transitional surgeries counted by the national health insurance fund, leading to a very low and unreliable prevalence between 1/10,000 and 1/50,000 as not all trans people will undergo surgical transition [5]. However, the desire of transgender people to become parents is significant in France: 10% for transgender men and 4% for transgender women, in addition to the 20% of transgender people who want to adopt a child [6]. It should be noted, however, that in this study, 8% of transgender men and 45% of transgender women were already parents before their gender transition [7].

For many traditional individuals in France and in some ranges of the political and cultural society, biotechnological advances have also introduced new changes in the ancestral logic of conceiving that refer to two equal lineages (that of the mother and that of the father) and the traditional transition steps from conception to adult sexuality with several cultural/symbolic invariants, including (1) the temporal order, (2) the certainty of one’s mother, and (3) the parallel link between sex and gender [4,8]. The traditional boundaries among gender identity, sexuality, conception, gestation, procreation, and filiation are deeply challenged. If the spread of contraception over the last fifty years has caused an effective separation between sexuality and procreation, the current disruptions in conservative thinking are going much further [4]. These advances are confusing to many and sometimes may create discomfort and apprehension. They have led to lively societal debates opposing two different views: bio-catastrophists, on the one hand, and techno-prophets, on the other hand [9]. The former think that science serves as a driving force bringing about apocalyptic times. It contributes to the destruction of norms and traditional modes and understandings of the meaning of life, with severe consequences for society and, ultimately, the resulting end of the human species. In contrast, the latter believe that science offers the promise of a paradisiac future, a new redemptive era with a pure incorporeal spirit emerging from thinking machines.

These new ways to conceive a child crystallize several ethical questions discussed by the ESHRE Task Force that proposed guidelines [10]. Finally, the ultimate challenge seems to be the well-being of the child to come. Some may question the welfare of the offspring because some may think such trans-parenthood may be confusing for children [4].

The literature on the psychological well-being of transgender parents’ children is sparse and limited to four studies that included 146 children [11-14]. Overall, they do not support the idea that trans-parenthood negatively impacts children’s development. However, assessments were not blind, and children were born before their parent’s transition. None of the children developed any gender identity variants, but some experienced difficulties in their relationship with peers (e.g., 33% in [13]); some suffered from depression (e.g., 13% in [14]). Notably, none of the previous studies have included a non-clinical control group or created a an experimental design specific to the research question.

An ideal situation to study the eventual impact of transgender parenthood is to explore children who are conceived by transgender people after their transition. In that case, children do not have to adapt to a new parental identity and are less confronted with socially aversive reactions [10]. Fifty-two children born between 2000 and 2015, by donor sperm insemination (DSI) in couples with a transgender man (assigned female at birth) and a cisgender woman, were followed qualitatively every two years. Children developed well without any major psychological morbidity [15]. Most of the child participants knew that they were born by third-party ART and that their fathers were assigned females at birth.

In the continuity of this last qualitative study, we proposed to carry out a two-year cross-sectional comparative study using standardized quantitative instruments. We aimed to compare cognitive development, mental health, gender identity, quality of life and family dynamics in children from transgender fathers conceived by donor sperm insemination (Trans-DSI group) and in two control groups matched for age, gender and family status (in couple vs separated): naturally conceived (NC group) children conceived by sex from cisgender parents and children from cisgender parents conceived by conventional DSI (Cis-DSI group). We chose to recruit two control groups to differentiate the impact of the transgender fatherhood from the possible impact of the use of ART in the condition of third-party procreation. In addition, there is also very few data on the overall development of children conceived with sperm donation and the current study is the first one in France.

A common intuitive idea in the general population and sometimes argued by many childhood professionals in France is that parents' perceptions and emotional experiences of their child vary according to their biological sex and their assigned sex during their own development. Many argue that having a transgender parent could have consequences in terms of parent-child relationship and family dynamics [16]. To address this issue, we used the Five-Minute Speech Sample (FMSS) [17,18], which is an instrument assessing the emotional climate within the family through attitudes and feelings expressed by a parent towards his/her child and termed expressed emotions. In addition, we developed a quasi-experimental design based on children’s family drawings to investigate whether cues not captured by the questionnaire could be seen by blind raters [17]. With this quasi-experimental design, we intended to explore more subtle differences between children born from Trans-DSI (meaning a transgender father) and NC children born from natural conception from cis-gender parents who had sexual intercourse. We used a method that was previously developed to explore how traumatic experience could be guessed without explicit information through participants’ responses from an experimental task using a permutation test [19]. Here, the task we proposed to children was drawing a family. We hypothesized that children born from Trans-DSI would not be more likely to use atypical representations during family drawing (e.g., of men/fathers and of sexual indices) to be detectable by external raters.

Based on the findings from the qualitative study, we hypothesized that (i) the psycho-affective development of children born by DSI whose father is a transgender man will not significantly differ from that of children born by conventional DSI or from that of children conceived by sexual intercourse of both cisgender parents (NC group); (ii) father and mother reports regarding their child will not differ; (iii) family dynamics in the families of children from Trans-DSI group will not significantly differ from that of families of children from Cis- DSI or from NC groups; using either a measure of parental expressed emotion towards the child; (iv) or through family drawing (meaning that no group of raters will be able to differentiate the family drawings between children from transgender fathers conceived by DSI and NC children).

Methods and analysis

Design

The study design is a monocentric cross-sectional comparative study over two years. The recruitment centre, CECOS-Cochin, is unique, but this centre is authorized to treat couples from all over France. When the first DSI for couples whose father was a transgender occurred in 2000, CECOS-Cochin was the only centre authorized in France. The study includes two domains: (i) a clinical assessment to assess psycho-affective development and (ii) a family exploration using parental expressed emotion towards the child and an experimental procedure (see below).

Ethics

The protocol was approved by the CERES (Comité d’Ethique de Recherche en Santé) of Paris 5 University (Registration number: 2015/31). Informed written consent was obtained from parents and children for participation in the study, orally up to 11 years old and with a written document for parents and for children and adolescents aged 12 to 15 years old. Appropriate information was provided to parents and the child or adolescent according to their age. When parents did not give their child born by DSI information about how he/she was conceived, we respected their wish and did not reveal it. It was an important ethical concern that was addressed with the ethics committee. We ensured that the study was presented as a research on the psycho-emotional development of children according to their mode of conception where parents could tell their child they belong to the control group of children conceived "naturally" if it was their choice to do so. Children and adolescents were therefore informed of the general objectives of the study in which they would participate but not of their status among the three possible groups. The information was given to them as follows: "Children are most often conceived by their parents, but parents may not be able to have children without the help of doctors. This research tries to find out if the way a child has been conceived can have effects on the child’s psychological and emotional development."

Recruitment of the participants

We constituted the first group (Trans-DSI group) composed of children of transgender fathers and cisgender mothers conceived by DSI based on the national cohort available [15]. Gender identity of the persons was established according to their statement during the interview conducted by the biologist and psychologists at CECOS-Cochin prior to conception by ART and was confirmed during our study’s interview. All the mothers identified themselves as cisgender women and all the fathers as transgender men. All said themselves to be binary identified. We proposed the research to 30 families over the 37 families of the national cohort (53 children). Seven of the 37 families had children too young to participate in the study (less than 18 months, which is the threshold age for the instrument which assesses global psychopathology). Seventeen out of the 30 families (i.e. 57%) agreed to participate. Four families refused to participate saying they did not want to spend a day for research, and nine families could not be contacted due to invalid coordinates. In total, 32 children were included in our Trans-DSI group. One parent could provide ratings on several children (see description of the sample below). This number of children should theoretically make it possible to highlight a difference between a normal and pathological range on each of the subscales of the Child Behaviour Checklist, including the internalizing and the externalizing scores (see power calculation below).

Then, we recruited two control groups of the same size matched for age, sex and family status. These two control groups constitute convenience samples recruited according to the characteristics of the group of children born by DSI of transgender fathers. In the second group, children were born by conventional DSI of both cisgender parents (Cis-DSI group). Approximately 75 couples have a progressive pregnancy by DSI at CECOS-Cochin each year. It is common for these couples to come back with a second or third request for donor-insemination. During the years 2014 and 2015, it was proposed to couples consulting in this context and to all other couples with at least one child born by DSI who consulted the CECOS of Cochin for whatever reasons to participate in the research. We also contacted other couples who had given their written consent to be contacted again by the CECOS for a research programme at the time they received the DSI. We included 28 children in our Cis-DSI group. The third group included naturally conceived controls born by sexual intercourse of cisgender parents (NC group). They were recruited by announcement in the meetings of the departments concerned among the families of the professionals who agreed as well as in a public school in the neighbourhood.

The inclusion criteria encompassed a target population of children aged under 15 years who were born by DSI or conceived by sex for the NC group and who agreed to participate in a one-day evaluation with the consent of their parents. The exclusion criteria were (i) a poor understanding of written and/or spoken French that would not have allowed participants to correctly complete the questionnaires or pass the standardized interviews and (ii) a refusal from at least one parent to sign the consent form. All couples were heterosexual, as DSI is only available for heterosexual couples in France.

Sample

Table 1 summarizes the sociodemographic and developmental characteristics of the participants. In total, we included 32 individuals in the Trans-DSI group, 28 individuals in the Cis-DSI group and 28 individuals in the NC group. The Trans-DSI group included 17 families: 7 had only one child included in the study, 6 had two children, 3 had 3 children and one family had 4 children. The Cis-DSI group included 16 families of which 7 had only one child included in the study, 6 had two children and 3 families had 3 children. The NC group included 17 families, 7 of which had only one child included in the study, 9 had two children, and 1 family had 3 children. There was a large majority of boys (75%) in our study group due to the unexplained distribution in the Trans-DSI group.

Table 1

Demographics and clinical characteristics of the participants.

	NC Group	Cis-DSI Group	Trans-DSI Group	Test	p (test)
	N = 28	N = 28	N = 32
Gender
Male	21 (75%)	16 (57%)	25 (78%)	Chi2	p = 0.096
Female	7 (25%)	12 (43%)	7 (22%)
Socio-economics
Low	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	1 (3%)
Intermediate	2 (7%)	20 (71%)	16 (50%)	Fisher	p<0.001
Good	25 (89%)	8 (29%)	15 (47%)
Parental status
In couple	28 (100%)	24 (86%)	29 (91%)	Fisher	p = 0.038
Separated	0 (0%)	4 (14%)	3 (9%)
Age in years
mean (SD) [min;max]	7.63 (3.71) [1.3;14.2]	4.31 (2.61) [0.7;11]	6.25 (3.59) [1.6;13.9]	ANOVA	p = 0.002
Total Intellectual Quotient (NNC = 26, NCDSI = 28, NTDSI = 32)
mean (SD) [min;max]	118.7 (14.82) [97;153]	111.2 (19.69) [81;151]	113.9 (16.33) [93;150]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.182
Gender Identity Interview for Children (NNC = 24, NCDSI = 19, NTDSI = 25)
Total score [pr = 0;24] mean (SD) [min;max]	1 (2.12) [0;10]	1.16 (1.86) [0;6]	1.24 (1.45) [0;5]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.45
Affective gender confusion [pr = 0;14] mean (SD) [min;max]	0.96 (1.99) [0;9]	0.89 (1.45) [0;5]	0.84 (1.14) [0;4]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.87
Cognitive gender confusion[pr = 0;8] mean (SD) [min;max]	0.08 (0.28) [0;1]	0.21 (0.63) [0;2]	0.16 (0.8) [0;4]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.72
Father CBCL T-Score (NNC = 27, NCDSI = 26, NTDSI = 30)
Anxious/depressed mean (SD) [min;max]	52.19 (4.95) [50;70]	51.31 (3.72) [50;68]	53.33 (5.26) [50;66]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.11
Somatic complaints mean (SD) [min;max]	52.56 (4.07) [50;62]	51.42 (3.70) [50;62]	53.8 (5.90) [50;72]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.043
Withdrawn/depressed mean (SD) [min;max]	52.81 (4.03) [50;66]	51.65 (3.20) [50;63]	54.4 (6.01) [50;70]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.28
Attention problems mean (SD) [min;max]	52.04 (3.71) [50;66]	52.35 (4.15) [50;64]	52.43 (3.69) [50;62]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.73
Agressive behavior mean (SD) [min;max]	51.85 (3.96) [50;63]	52.12 (4.58) [50;69]	52.5 (3.95) [50;63]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.34
Internalizing mean (SD) [min;max]	45 (10.2) [29;65]	41.65 (9.23) [29;63]	47.87 (12.56) [29;69]	ANOVA	p = 0.11
Externalizing mean (SD) [min;max]	43.85 (9.82) [28;64]	44.73 (10.88) [32;72]	45.70 (10.05) [28;61]	ANOVA	p = 0.79
Total problems mean (SD) [min;max]	43.59 (10.31) [28;65]	41.31 (9.98) [24;67]	46.07 (11.29) [26;68]	ANOVA	p = 0.25
Mother CBCL (NNC = 27, NCDSI = 26, NTDSI = 31)
Anxious/depressed mean (SD) [min;max]	52.89 (5.99) [50;74]	52.23 (4.63) [50;68]	52.06 (4.13) [50;64]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.96
Somatic complaints mean (SD) [min;max]	52.3 (4.08) [50;64]	51.77 (3.46) [50;64]	53 (5.17) [50;70]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.77
Withdrawn mean (SD) [min;max]	52.74 (4.46) [50;70]	52.69 (3.94) [50;63]	53.71 (4.70) [50;68]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.45
Attention problems mean (SD) [min;max]	51.41 (3.04) [50;62]	52.42 (4.69) [50;67]	52.39 (3.77) [50;62]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.68
Agressive behavior mean (SD) [min;max]	50.74 (2.01) [50;59]	52.65 (4.92) [50;69]	52.39 (3.49) [50;60]	Kruskal-Wallis	p = 0.06
Internalizing mean (SD) [min;max]	54.04 (10.43) [29;63]	44.15 (10.01) [29;63]	47.48 (9.47) [29;66]	ANOVA	p = 0.42
Externalizing mean (SD) [min;max]	43.41 (8.38) [28;58]	47.31 (12.24) [28;72]	45.68 (9.75) [28;61]	ANOVA	p = 0.38
Total_problems mean (SD) [min;max]	43.04 (8.14) [28;63]	43.58 (11.23) [24;67]	44.94 (9.5) [26;64]	ANOVA	p = 0.74

NC: Naturally Conceived; Cis-DSI: Conventional Donor Semen Insemination; Trans-DSI: Transgender father and Donor Semen Insemination; CBCL: Child Behavior Check List; GIIC: Gender Identity Interview for Children; N:Number of participants who completed the measure; pr: possible range.

In the Trans-DSI group, 29 out of 32 children (from 14 out of 17 families) knew that they had been conceived by DSI and 28 (from 15 out of 17 families) knew that their father had been assigned female at birth. In total, only 3 transgender parents did not inform their children of their trans identity including 2 who did not inform the child about DSI. In the Cis-DSI group 25 out of 28 children (from 13 out of 16 families) knew that they had been conceived by DSI.

Although we tried to match all groups on parental status, age and gender, we did not succeed for age as children in the Cis-DSI group were significantly younger (t student: p<0.001 for Trans-DSI (mean age = 6.25) vs. Cis-DSI (mean age = 4.32); p = 0.019 for NC (mean age = 7.63) vs. Cis-DSI). However, there was no age difference between the Trans-DSI and NC groups. The younger age of the children in the Cis-DSI group was due to French DSI specificities. In contrast to many other European countries (e.g., Switzerland), sperm donation is anonymous and not telling children about DSI and sperm donation is a very common practice. It is only in more recent years that changes in practice have been noticed in parallel with ethical debates regarding the possibility for children to ask for genetic origin (meaning changing the status of anonymous donation) [20]. Consequently, we had difficulties finding parents who conceived with DSI and older children or adolescents accepting participation in the research. Additionally, socioeconomic status (SES) and family stability were higher in the NC group. However, it is notable that very few families (N = 2, 2.3%) across groups had low SES and that a small proportion of parents across groups (N = 7, 8%) were separated.

Measures

Each child and family underwent a thorough single-day evaluation within the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris or at home if parents wished to do so. The department is well suited for a one-day welcoming of children for these assessments. The evaluation day began with a family interview with a mental health professional using a semi-structured interview. The study explored several dimensions [17]. In order to test our first two hypotheses, we used respectively: (1) for cognitive development, an adapted rating according to age: for those 2 to 30 months of age, we used the Brunet-Lézine psychomotor development scale [21], which estimates a Developmental Quotient (DQ) based on the normative data available for 2-year-old French toddlers; for those 30 months to 6 years of age, the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Intelligence Scale for Children- third edition (WPPSI-3) [22], which is a standardized developmental test for preschool-age children that measures intelligence skills; and for those 7 years of age and older, we used the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-fourth edition (WISC-4) [23], which is a standardized developmental test for school-age children that measures intelligence skills. (2) For mental health, we used Achenbach's Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) [24], which assesses global psychopathology for children aged 6 to 18 years. We used the Preschool version for children aged 1.5 to 5 years. Both versions have been validated in France, and our samples were compared with the French norms. The CBCL is a parent-report measure designed to record the behaviours of children (one questionnaire filled by the mother and one questionnaire filled by the father separately). Each item describes a specific behaviour, and the parent is asked to rate its frequency on a three-point Likert scale. The CBCL gives, among others, three main scores (Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems): a T-score of 64 and above is considered clinically significant, values between 60 and 63 identify a borderline clinical range, and values under 60 are considered non-clinical. Only the scores that were assessed by both the 1.5–5 and the 6–18 scales were selected in our study and compared. (3) For gender identity, we used the Gender Identity Interview for Children (GIIC) [25]. The GIIC includes 12 questions scored using a 3-item Likert scale which assess affective and cognitive gender confusion within the child. The total score can range from 0 (normal score) to 24 (highest probability of GD) and when the score is above a threshold of 4 the child may be at risk of gender dysphoria. GIIC was the only scale that was not validated in France. To ensure the properties of the French GIIC, we performed an interrater reliability study that found excellent Cronbach alpha (total score = 0.98, factor 1 = 0.95, factor 2 = 0.97) and a ROC analysis to discriminate children with gender incongruence from those who do not (on an independent sample of 25 children) that found the same threshold that the one recommended in the English version (threshold = 4 for possible ranges for GIIC total score within 0 and 24). (4) For quality of life, we used the Kidscreen 52 [26], which assesses the child’s global quality of life. The Kidscreen 52 is an auto-questionnaire for children and young people from 8 years old and measures 10 health-related quality of life dimensions: Physical (5 items), Psychological Well-Being (6 items), Moods and Emotions (7 items), Self-Perception (5 items), Autonomy (5 items), Parent Relations and Home Life (6 items), Social Support and Peers (6 items), School Environment (6 items), Social Acceptance (Bullying) (3 items), and Financial Resources (3 items).

In order to test our third hypothesis, we used: (1) the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) [27], which is an auto-questionnaire for children and adolescents from 9 years old measuring various qualities of children’s relationships with parents and peers, including trust, quality of communication, and feelings of anger and alienation. It contains three sub-questionnaires: one concerning the mother, one concerning the father and one concerning peers. (2) the Five-Minute Speech Sample (FMSS) [18], which assesses the emotional climate within the family through attitudes and feelings expressed by a relative of a family member termed expressed emotions. The FMSS is based on a material made by a relative towards the child during a recorded session with the following instruction: “I would like to hear from you about your thoughts and feelings about (name of family member) in your own words and without any interruption on my part by questions or comments. When I ask you to start, I would like you to talk to me for 5 minutes, telling me what kind of person is (name of the family member) and how you get along with him/her. Once you start speaking, I prefer not to answer any questions before the end of the 5 minutes”. For each child we recorded separately one session with the mother and one session with the father. There is no specific age range for this instrument. The FMSS distinguishes two main categories of expressed emotions that measure levels of criticism and emotional over-involvement. Rating requires a specific training and each expressed emotion is rated low, intermediate or high. The critical dimension is based on the initial statement, the expressed relationship and the blame or the dissatisfaction supported, whereas the emotional over-involvement includes emotional displays, statements of attitude (e.g., extreme loving), self-sacrificing and overprotection or a lack objectivity, an excess of detail about the past, and more than five positive remarks regarding the child [28]. The number of occurrences of expressed emotions for each category is recorded and produces a percentage. The total score requires the use of algorithm combining the rating of the two categories. The interrater reliability for FMSS scoring was strong (kappa-critical EE = 0.64, p = 0.008), (kappa-emotional over-involvement EE = 0.68, p = 0.007), (kappa-EE total = 0.88, p<0.001).

Guessing transgender fatherhood from children’s family drawing

As said previously, to explore more subtle differences between children born from Trans-DSI (meaning a transgender father) and NC children, we used a method that was previously developed to explore how traumatic experience could be guessed without explicit information through participants’ responses from an experimental task using a permutation test [19]. Here, the task we proposed to children was drawing a family. As permutation test offers binary combination of answers, the task was performed by only two groups: children from Trans-DSI and NC children. The task was inspired by the Corman’s Family Drawing Test [29], which assesses the child’s perception of family relationship. Drawing is a medium that offers to children the possibility of working from the projective and symbolic value of their contents. Corman's Family Drawing Test examines the graphic level which considers the quality of the production (the line, its size, its strength, the pace of drawing and the space of the sheet used to make it), the formal level derived from the original studies of the "drawing of the good man" (the degree of development of the child through the representation of the body of the characters’ drawn, the link between the different characters, as well as the different elements drawing), and the level of contents indicating a projective value of the drawing (unusual or anxious representations, specific psychological problems of each child, valorisation/devaluation of certain characters) [29].

Family Drawing promotes child’s projection associated with what the family represents. We built our experiment on that ability. The experiment responds to an assumption commonly found in French society and among childcare professionals: having a transgender parent could influence the development of the child, his/her identity construction but also his/her representations especially with regard to the family [16]. In order to be able to capture these important points, we included a group of raters who were experienced child psychoanalysts expert in the interpretation of children's drawings (see below). The previous study using the same innovative method [19] showed that psychoanalyst evaluators were the only ones to recognize better and above chance adults who experienced a childhood trauma.

Raters with diverse experiences were asked to guess children’s group by viewing the drawings. To explore which experiences in raters may be helpful, the family drawings were analysed by 20 raters (4 child and family psychoanalysts (FAMPSY), 4 adult psychiatrists (ADUPSY), 4 biologists working in ART (BIOL), 4 endocrinologists working with transgender individuals (ENDOC) and 4 students (STUD)). They were randomly shown the drawings and asked to blindly classify them according to whether the child had a transgender father using a 4-level Likert scale: I am certain that the drawing was done by a child from the Trans-DSI group, I think that the drawing was probably done by a child from the Trans-DSI group, I think that the drawing was probably done by a child from the NC group, and I am certain that the drawing was done by a child from the NC group. Differences between children’s family drawings were evaluated with a generalization of the “lady tasting tea” procedure to link qualitative and quantitative approaches in psychiatric research [30].

Power calculation

Given that we used two different methods, we had two power calculations to determine. For clinical assessment, as we hypothesized that the psycho-affective development of children born by DSI whose father is a transgender man will not significantly differ from that of children born by conventional DSI or from that of children conceived by sexual intercourse of both cisgender parents, we needed to ensure that the number of individuals included was high enough to ensure that if we had no differences between groups that the statistical power was sufficient. The minimum size of the sample was calculated to be able to show with an alpha error probability of 5% and a statistical power of 80% a significant difference between two groups on the CBCL, one of our main objectives. We used the Multicultural Supplement to the Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles [31] baseline data that present mean scores and standard deviations for samples corresponding to the French population for each scale. We calculated for each scale the sample size needed to highlight a difference between the normal range and the clinical range defined for the scale with an alpha error probability of 5% and a statistical power of 80% given the reference mean scores and standard deviations for the French population. We used the statistical programme R, version 3.3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) [32] with the formula n.for.2means (m1, m2, sd1, sd2, ratio, alpha, power). The minimum size was found between 3 and 24 per group according to the scale. Only the CBCL Total score required a minimum size of 38 per group.

For the experimental procedure exploring whether raters blind to children status could classify children’s family drawings above chance levels, we used a permutation test based on a modified version of Fisher’s lady tasting tea procedure [19,30,33]. This statistical procedure was chosen to limit type I error. The number of cases, controls and raters required to detect differences with a power greater than 80% for a p < .05 was calculated by Falissard et al. [30]. For a sensitivity and specificity of correctly categorizing each subject, both equal to 80%, 23 cases, 23 controls and 4 raters are enough to detect significant differences using the procedure described below with a type I error of .05 and a power calculated at 99% [30].

Data processing and statistics

As requested by French regulation, all data were processed anonymously and confidentially. Data were identified only by a code number and correspondence between this code and the participant’s name/surname could only be established through a private list kept separately in another office. We used the Pitié-Salpêtrière child psychiatry computerized database for the processing of these data (CNIL declaration n° 1303778). The data of the present study were analysed using the statistical programme R, version 3.3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) [32]. For each variable, statistics were summarized with numbers and percentages for qualitative variables and with means (standard deviations) or medians (quartiles) for quantitative variables.

The first analysis compared each variable across the three study groups: naturally conceived children (NC group), children conceived by conventional donor sperm insemination (Cis-DSI group) and children conceived by DSI from a transgender father (Trans-DSI group). Based on the qualitative exploratory study [15], we hypothesized no difference between the groups. For each quantitative variable, we explored data distribution and normality using visual exploration. When normality was not reached, we used the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test. When normality was reached, ANOVA was used for 3-group comparisons, followed by Student’s t-test for 2-group comparisons. For qualitative variables, we used the chi-squared or Fisher exact test according to the number of values. No correction for multiple testing has been done since our main hypotheses were in favor of the null hypothesis.

The second analysis explored whether raters blind to children’s status could classify children’s family drawings above chance levels. This analysis was limited to two groups. We used a permutation test based on a modified version of Fisher’s lady tasting tea procedure [28,30,33]. It is noticeable that since the raters know that half of the records belong to “cases” and the other half to “controls”, the ratings cannot be considered as independent realizations of a random variable, such that a traditional Student t-test or Mann-Whitney test should not be used. In contrast, under the null hypothesis, cases’ and controls’ records are indistinguishable; all permutations of scores obtained for each record are equiprobable. Hence, a sound (one-sided) p-value can be estimated as the proportion of permutations of the n records for which the total score is higher or equal to the total score obtained in the experiment [30]. We used a two-sided p-value based on a similar principle here. Of note, because of multiple testing (5 totally separate p-values were computed empirically), the level for significance was p<0.01.

Therefore, the association between judges’ ratings and the actual distribution of subjects into cases and controls was tested in the following way. First, a score was computed for each group of raters: FAMPSY, ADUPSY, BIOL, ENDOC and STUD. The score was obtained by summing all 4*46 coded evaluations: +2 when the raters correctly answered yes or no, +1 when they correctly answered probably yes or probably no, –1 when they incorrectly answered probably yes or probably no, and –2 when they incorrectly answered yes or no. Thus, for each rater, the score could vary from +92 for all correct guesses (with a maximal certainty) to –92 for no correct guesses. For each group of raters, the score could range from +368 for all perfects to –368 for maximum failure.

To determine whether a group classified cases and controls better than could have been expected by chance, a permutation test was performed as described above using R software version 3.3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) [32]. The p-value was finally equal to twice the number of permutations for which the score was above the score obtained for the original data set in the experiment. Given that we used a modified version of the lady tasting tea procedure, it is not possible to provide a table showing the number of permutations for each level of performance on the dyads because first, there are 4 judges and second, possible answers are not yes or no but +2, +1, -1 and -2. Therefore, the number of possible errors ranges between 0 and 92 (2*46).

Results

Developmental characteristics of the participants

As shown in Table 1, we found no significant differences between the 3 groups regarding general intelligence (118.7 (±14.82) vs. 111.2 (±19.69) vs. 113.9 (±16.33) for NC, Cis-DSI and Trans-DSI, respectively, Kruskall-Walis, p = 0.182), gender identity (1 (±2.12) vs. 1.16 (±1.86) vs. 1.24 (±1.45) for NC, Cis-DSI and Trans-DSI, respectively, Kruskall-Walis, p = 0.45), or overall mental status as assessed with the CBCL (e.g., mother’s CBCL total problems: 43.04 (±8.14) vs. 43.58 (±11.23) vs. 44.94 (±9.5) for NC, Cis-DSI and Trans-DSI, respectively, ANOVA, p = 0.74). Only the Father’s Somatic complaints T-Scores showed a significant difference between the three groups (p = 0.043). Two-to-two comparisons showed that the Trans-DSI group T-scores were significantly higher than those of the Cis-DSI group (Wilcoxon p = 0.013). There was no significant difference between the Trans-DSI and the NC group or between the Cis-DSI group and the NC group. However, the means of the T-scores in each of the 3 groups were neither in the pathological zone nor in the limit zone. Regarding CBCL scores on an individual level, one 11-year-old girl from the Cis-DSI group had an externalizing CBCL subscore reaching 70 the pathological threshold. Father’s CBCL Total score as Mother’s CBCL Total score was in the clinical range for one child in the Cis-DSI group. Father’s CBCL Total score was in the clinical range for one child in the NC group and for three children in the Trans-DSI group, but Mother’s CBCL Total score was in the normal range for all these children. In addition, no child or parent reported bullying or harassment during the semi-structured interview. The trans identity of the parent was known within his family and in most cases within his in-laws (15 out of 17 families). On the other hand, neither the friendship groups nor the professional or school environment for children was informed of trans identity.

As the groups were quite young, especially in the Cis-DSI group, we did not have enough data for the Kidscreen to perform statistical analysis. S1 Table summarizes the quality of life characteristics of the participants. Kidscreen was performed by 13 children and adolescents in the NC group, 10 in the Trans-DSI group and only 2 in the Cis-DSI group. Nevertheless, for the adolescents and older children able to complete this instrument, it appears that the preliminary data are reassuring as most indicated rather good quality of life.

We also wanted to investigate whether the father and mother in the different groups had a common view of their children’s behaviour. The CBCL can be completed by each parent separately. We were able to obtain 29 pairs (father, mother) in the Trans-DSI group, 26 pairs in the Cis-DSI group and 27 pairs in the NC group. Then, we calculated the intra-class correlations between mother and father CBCL scores in each group (Table 2). We found that fathers globally responded as mothers for their child in the 3 groups looking at the internalizing, externalizing and total scores. Low correlation coefficients were only observed between fathers’ and mothers’ responses to certain domains (withdrawn/depressed in the Cis-DSI group and attention problems and aggressive/behaviour scales in the Trans-DSI group and in the NC group).

Table 2

CBCL (Child Behavior Check List) and FMSS (Five Minutes Speech Sample): Correlation between father's and mother's scores.

	NC Group	Cis-DSI Group	Trans-DSI Group
	N = 28	N = 28	N = 32
CBCL T-score by Pairs (NNC = 27, NCDSI = 26, NTDSI = 29)
Anxious/depressed T-Score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.39 [0.06;0.65]	0.68 [0.44;0.83]	0.63 [0.38;0.80]
Somatic complaints T-Score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.47 [0.15;0.70]	0.80 [0.63;0.90]	0.60 [0.32;0.78]
Withdrawn depressed T-Score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.79 [0.61;0.89]	0.15 [-O.20;0.47]	0.41 [0.08;0.66]
Attention problems T-score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.23 [-0.12;0.53]	0.80 [0.62;0.89]	0.01 [-0.33;0.36]
Agressive behavior T-score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.09 [-0.24;0.42]	0.74 [0.54;0.87]	0.20 [-0.15;0.51]
Internalizing T-score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.70 [0.48;0.84]	0.66 [0.42;0.82]	0.65 [0.40;0.81]
Externalizing T-score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.66 [0.41;0.82]	0.81 [0.63;0.90]	0.67 [0.43;0.82]
Total problems T-score ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.66 [0.40;0.81]	0.79 [0.60;0.89]	0.64 [0.39;0.81]
FMSS score by Pairs (NNC = 19, NCDSI = 25, NTDSI = 30)
Expressed Emotion ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.10 [-0.14;0.38]	0.00 [-0.34;0.34]	0.00 [-0.34;0.34]
Criticism ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.20 [-0.15;0.51]	0.16 [-0.19;0.48]	0.67 [0.43;0.83]
Emotional Over Involvement ICC [lower bound;upper bound]	0.18 [-0.09;0.46]	0.02 [-0.33;0.36]	0.00 [-0.34;0.34]

NC: Naturally Conceived; Cis-DSI: Conventional Donor Semen Insemination; Trans-DSI: Transgender father and Donor Semen Insemination; ICC: Intraclass correlation; N: Number of participants who completed the measure.

Family dynamics

Inventory of Parents and Peers Attachment was performed by 11 children and adolescents in the NC group, 8 in the Trans-DSI group and only 2 in the Cis-DSI group. As the groups were quite young, especially in the Cis-DSI group, we did not have enough data to perform statistical analysis. S1 Table summarizes the attachment characteristics of the participants. It appears that these preliminary data indicate secure attachment.

Concerning parental expressed emotions toward the child, Table 3 summarizes the FMSS for mothers and fathers of each group. In contrast to children’s characteristics, all parental expressed emotions showed significant differences across groups. Two-group comparisons (S2–S4 Tables) showed that Expressed Emotions, Criticism and Emotional Over-Involvement were significantly higher in Trans-DSI fathers than in both NC and Cis-DSI fathers. There was no significant difference between the Cis-DSI and NC groups in fathers’ Expressed Emotion, Criticism and Emotional Over-Involvement. For mothers, we found that they responded differently across groups but given the distributions in percentages, which were neither homogeneous nor linear, we only conducted two-group comparisons: Expressed Emotions were higher in NC mothers than in Cis-DSI mothers, Criticism was higher in Trans-DSI mothers than in NC mothers, and Emotional Over-Involvement was higher in NC mothers than in both Cis-DSI and Trans-DSI mothers. Finally, we performed intra-class correlations between parent pairs (Table 2). We found that fathers and mothers responded differently in all three groups except for the critical dimension in the Trans-DSI group, where fathers' and mothers' responses were correlated (ICC = 0.67 [95%CI:0.43–0.83]).

Table 3

Five Minute Speech Sample results.

	NC Group	Cis-DSI Group	Trans-DSI Group	Test	p (test)
	N = 28	N = 28	N = 32
Mother Expressed Emotion (NNC = 21, NCDSI = 28, NTDSI = 30)
Low	1 (5%)	9 (32%)	3 (10%)		p = 0.005
Limit	13 (62%)	13 (46%)	15 (50%)	Chi2
High	7 (33%)	6 (21%)	12 (40%)
Mother Criticism (NNC = 21, NCDSI = 28, NTDSI = 30)
Low	17 (81%)	23 (82%)	16 (53%)		p = 0.007
Limit	3(14%)	4 (14%)	9 (30%)	Chi2
High	1 (5%)	1 (4%)	5 (17%)
Mother Emotional Over Involvement (NNC = 21, NCDSI = 28, NTDSI = 30)
Low	1 (5%)	10 (36%)	5 (17%)		p = 0.010
Limit	14 (67%)	13 (46%)	17 (57%)	Chi2
High	6 (29%)	5 (18%)	8 (27%)
Father Expressed Emotion (NNC = 19, NCDSI = 25, NTDSI = 31)
Low	7 (37%)	8 (32%)	2 (6%)		p<0.001
Limit	10 (53%)	15 (60%)	17 (55%)	Chi2
High	2 (10%)	2 (8%)	12 (39%)
Father criticism (NNC = 19, NCDSI = 25, NTDSI = 31)
Low	13 (68%)	20 (80%)	15 (48%)		p = 0.002
Limit	5 (26%)	5 (20%)	13 (42%)	Chi2
High	1 (5%)	0 (0%)	3 (10%)
Father Emotional Over Involvement (NNC = 19, NCDSI = 25, NTDSI = 31)
Low	9 (47%)	9 (36%)	5 (16%)		p<0.001
Limit	9 (47%)	14 (56%)	17 (55%)	Chi2
High	1 (5%)	2 (8%)	9 (29%)

NC: Naturally Conceived; Cis-DSI: Conventional Donor Semen Insemination; Trans-DSI: Transgender father and Donor Semen Insemination; N:Number of participants who completed the measure.

Are expert raters able to guess whether children have a transgender father when observing family drawings?

In the experimental procedure, we asked four groups of expert raters to guess whether children had a transgender father when studying family drawings. These experts were child and family psychoanalysts (FAMPSY), adult psychiatrists (ADUPSY), biologists working in ART (BIOL), and endocrinologists working with transgender individuals (ENDOC). To assess the possible framing effect [34], we also added a group of inexperienced raters (students STUD) who received simplified instructions. The results are summarized in Fig 1. No group of raters was able to distinguish, based on family drawings, children raised with a transgender father and conceived through DSI and donor sperm from NC children conceived by heterosexual parents and sexual intercourse. The details of each rater scoring and the calculation of guessing score by groups of raters are available in S5 Table.

Fig 1

The recognition scores of each rating group during the experimental procedure with the family drawings.

The scores calculated by adult psychiatrists, endocrinologists, biologists, family therapists and students when determining whether family drawings were done by children who had a transgender father and were born by DSI or by children who had a cisgender father and were born by sexual intercourse. For each group of raters, the score could vary from +368 for all perfect guesses to -368 for a complete failure, and the probability that the score differed from chance was calculated using a permutation test. The computed p-value for each group of raters is indicated on the bar (level of significance p = 0.01).

Discussion

To facilitate discussion of the current results, we propose to explore our 4 hypotheses. Our results validate our first hypothesis namely that psycho-affective development of children born by DSI whose father is a transgender man do not significantly differ from that of children born by conventional DSI or from that of children conceived by sexual intercourse of both cisgender parents. We did not find any difference in cognitive development, gender identity, or mental health problems when comparing the three groups. Moreover, results regarding attachment and quality of life (descriptive analysis S1 Table) are overall reassuring. The cognitive development of all children showed no difference between groups, with an average IQ of 113.9 (ranges: 93–150).

In terms of psychopathology (as compared to the rates of psychopathology are among the (child) general population in France), three (10%) children whose father was transgender had a Father's CBCL Total score in the clinical Z-score range (total sore = 64; 65; 68) and one had a score in the limit zone. For all the children in the Trans-DSI group, including those children, Mother's CBCL Total scores were in the normal range. The current results contrast with those of White and Ettner’s [14] study of children born before their parents' transition, as they found that 34% of the children had mental health disorders in a study population of 55 children, even if these numbers did not significantly exceed the rates found in the general population. In Freedman’s study, 6% of the children were depressed or expressed suffering [13].

In previous studies investigating the psychopathology of children having a trans-parent, authors did not attribute disorders found to the fact that these children had a trans-parent. Our findings are consistent with this interpretation. It is likely that a mixture of risk factors intervened, such as bio-environmental factors, the child’s own experience of his/her parent’s transitioning or the social stigma of transitioning in terms of the children’s environment (e.g., school and social media). Regarding bio-environmental factors, it should be noted that in White and Ettner’s study, psychological disorders pre-existed the parent's transition in 63% of the included children [14].

In contrast with previous studies, our sample differs from previous studies. It was a non-clinical sample composed exclusively of children from transgender father who had their transition before the children were conceived by DSI. Information about DSI and/or father’s transition was shared in most families. Fourteen out of 17 families had informed their children (28 out of 32 children) that their father was assigned female at birth and that they were born by DSI. Families were stable as only 3 out of 32 children (2 out of 17 families) had divorced parents. They were maintaining relationships with both parents. The samples from the previous studies are very different. They consisted mainly of children, one of whose parents was a transgender woman who had transitioned after the birth of the children [11-14]. They also included important recruitment bias: sample referred for expert opinion by court in Freedman's study [13] (in addition, this sample was not compared to a non-clinical sample of children but to a clinical sample of children and adolescents referred for gender issues); only parental interviews about their children in White and Ettner's study [14]; mainly children from conflicting/separated parents in Green, Freedman and White studies [9-14].

Quality of life was only assessed in a small number of children due to the young age in our cohort, but these descriptive results show no warning signs. In addition no child has been bullied or harassed in school or in social relationships. The risk of harassment and stigmatization for children of transgender parents is a potential risk [12,35]. Several studies have shown that peer harassment and teasing are infrequent i.e. Freedman et al [13] reported 33% of difficulties with peers in general, but no harassment or victimization; whereas Veldorale-Griffin [36] found 33% of bullying at school. Qualitative studies from parent-report data found that the children of transgender parents reported feeling protective towards their parent when they noticed discrimination or social rejection of their transgender parent [37-39]. The only qualitative study from an UK child-report data (33 children and adolescents of whom 23 were siblings) found that parental gender identity did not adversely impact upon how children and adolescents perceived their relationship with their parent as they expressed a sense of relational continuity. However, it might be otherwise relevant to their experiences both within and outside of the home with some of them expressing feelings of ambiguous loss, or the need to become responsible or to negotiate family display [40]. Also, many transgender parents were developing preventative strategies for themselves and their children not to be stigmatized [41]. Our results are in lines with previous studies exploring children of transgender parents. We believe that the low rate of harassment and stigmatization we found is related to the fact that children in our sample were born after the transition of their parent. It is likely that the absence of disclosure in the social environment outside the family circle contributed to prevent stigmatization and harassment.

We also note that all the children were cisgender identified. The interest in observing children's gender identity was to answer the question of whether having a transgender father has an impact on the development of the child's gender identity. One hypothesis could have been that having a transgender parent leads to a more fluid conception of gender with more possibilities for the child to identify outside the traditional heteronormative, cisnormative framework [42]. Our results do not support this hypothesis even if we must take into account the small number of participants in view of the low prevalence of trans-identities in the general population (approximately 1% according to self-reported surveys [43,44]).

Regarding our second hypothesis (father and mother reports regarding their child do not differ) was addressed by comparing mothers and fathers CBCL scores of the same child. We found that fathers globally responded as mothers for their child in the 3 groups although differences were observed between fathers’ and mothers’ responses to certain domains (withdrawn/depressed in the Cis-DSI group and attention problems and aggressive/behaviour scales in the Trans-DSI group and in the NC group). It seems that neither gender identities, nor the transgender fatherhood nor the mode of conception, and therefore nor a genetic link between the father and the child, have an impact on the parent’s view of the possible symptoms of their child.

Our third hypothesis was that family dynamics from children born by DSI whose father is a transgender man do not significantly differ from that of families with children born by conventional DSI or from that of families with children naturally conceived. Attachment could only be assessed in a small number of children due to the young age of our sample. But the descriptive results show no warning in this area (S1 Table). Regarding Expressed Emotions investigated with the FMSS, discussion should be cautious as expressed emotions have no specific psychopathological value per se. In the literature, FMSS Expressed Emotions or subscores were predictors of better outcome in young individuals with anorexia nervosa [27] or of poorer outcome in adult individuals with anorexia nervosa [45,46] or schizophrenia [47]. Key aspects for interpreting Expressed Emotions in families are the need (i) to distinguish fathers and mothers, (ii) to distinguish the type of condition as it is well known that chronic and severe conditions may impact family functioning [27,48-50], and (iii) to compare the same condition with the same instruments [51]. In our case, the current study is the first to explore parenting in the context of DSI. As transgender fathers differed from both the two other control groups, it seems that not the ART with donor insemination i.e. no genetic link between father and child, but the transgender fatherhood influenced the scores.

In contrast with our hypothesis, parental expressed emotion towards the child was not similar across fathers and across mothers. Indeed, we found that fathers and mothers responded differently in all three groups except for the critical dimension in the Trans-DSI group, where fathers' and mothers' responses were correlated. It seems, therefore, that the parent's gender identity has an impact on his/her expressed emotions towards the child.

We believe that the facts that (i) transgender fathers differed from both NC group fathers and Cis-DSI group fathers in terms of FMSS Expressed Emotions and (ii) transgender fathers were like their child’s mothers in terms of criticism might have some meanings for trans-parenting. Indeed, by combining the objective difference of transgender fathers in the emotional experience with their child and the high intra-class correlation of critical dimension scores between transgender fathers and their wives (or paired mothers), several hypotheses can be formulated. (i) For each human being, becoming a parent is a self-flourishing experience transforming oneself and one's identity [51]. This experience is not the same for a transgender parent and triggers a different emotional mobilization after one’s gender transition. (ii) Transgender parents must manage the projections of a heteronormative, cisnormative society on their way of making a family. They may cope to their unconventional situation with anxieties. These projections can also have an impact on the lived experience and emotional expression of these parents [4].

Our last hypothesis that was no group of raters would be able to differentiate the family drawings between children from transgender fathers conceived by DSI and NC children was validated by our results. Here, the quasi-experimental design based on children’s family drawings investigated whether cues not captured by the questionnaire could be seen by blind raters [17]. Neither the child and family psychoanalysts’ group nor the four other groups of raters were able to differentiate the family drawings of children of trans-fathers from those of children in the NC group. For many clinicians, the "Drawing of the Family" is considered as a fine and sensitive means of evaluation of the different aspects of the child's functioning regarding his/her family. This experience also makes it possible to directly explore the children's family drawings while our psychopathological assessment was based on the CBCL where the questionnaires—given the young age of the children—are filled by the parents. The results show that there is no qualitative difference distinguishable by experts. Since one of our study limitations is the large age range (see below), we also performed a sensitivity analysis including only children aged 7 and older (2 groups of 11 children). At this age, all children can draw recognizable characters with gender-oriented cues [29]. The permutation test found the same results with a sufficient power [30]: no group of raters were able to guess whose children were sons or girls from transgender fathers (BIOL score = -38, p = 0.03; ENDOC score = 19, p = 0.36; STUD score = 0, p = 1; ADUPSY score = -6, p = 0.71; FAMPSY score = 8, p = 0.85; with guessing being linked to positive score only and p<0.01 being the level of significance after Bonferroni correction).

In France, few fertility service providers agree to perform DSI for couples whose man is transgender [15]. The main reason is the concern of professionals that echoes the concern of a part of society about the welfare of children to come [15]. At the same time, trans-people come to consultation before conceiving a child and ask practitioners about what science knows about possible risks for their children. We hope that the results of this study will enable professionals to demystify the issue of trans-parenting and that it will help reduce the anxiety of transgender people who are already parents or are parents in waiting.

Despite some strengths (including a unique sample of children with transgender fathers, two matched control groups, using standardized instruments, statistical power, and experimental procedures to investigate qualitative impressions in expressed emotion and family drawing), our study has several limitations. First, despite being the largest sample of children born from trans-fathers who had their transition before conception, the sample consisted of a small number of children. Similarly, we recruited a small number of families (only 17 out of 37 families solicited). Several other limitations result directly from the small size of this sample: (i) because of the small size of the Trans-DSI group, the two control groups constitute convenience samples recruited according to the characteristics of the Trans-DSI group. (ii) The age ranges and standard deviations are wide because it has not been possible to select a more homogeneous population of age that would have been at the same time sufficient for a statistical study. We cannot exclude the possibility of rare differences despite our power calculation. (iii) It should also be noted that we did not reach the theoretical size of the sample required for a power of 0.8 for the total score of the CBCL. This weakens our results although the theoretical number was reached for each sub score of the instrument. (iv) Our study group and consequently our matched control groups showed an over-proportion of boys (75%). This may be a viewed as a limitation. Nevertheless, despite matched comparisons between groups, the CBCL considers the gender of the child in the Z-score statistics that we used. Also, epidemiological studies show a 15% incidence of mental health in childhood and adolescence, slightly higher and earlier in boys [52]. This would rather tend to reinforce the validity of our results. Second, the study is transversal in nature and not prospective. Therefore, many children were young. This did not allow the evaluation of certain parameters, such as quality of life and self-reported attachment instruments. Third, despite our efforts to match participants for age, the NC and Trans-DSI groups were not perfectly matched for age to the Cis-DSI group. Fourth, the response rate was 56% in our study group (17 families out of 30). Further research is needed, especially with adolescents and young adults, as we cannot exclude that adolescence would eventually impact children’s development.

In conclusion, we explored cognitive development, mental health, gender identity, and family dynamics in 32 children who were conceived by donor sperm insemination (DSI) in couples with a cisgender woman and a transgender man who had his transition before conception. We compared children’s psychological and family outcomes in these children and in two matched control groups. Our study showed that the psycho-emotional development of children whose fathers are transgender is good and that there is no difference between these children and those of control groups. Similarly, no rater was able to differentiate the family drawings of children of trans-fathers from those of children in the NC control group. We also showed that the emotions expressed by transgender fathers who conceived by DSI were more intense than those of cisgender fathers who conceived by sex or by DSI. The generalization of our results should consider the limitations listed above but also the context of the sample that show middle/good SES and excellent family stability, two factors that contribute to children’s mental health [53,54]. We believe that this research will also improve transgender couple care and that of their children in a society where access to care remains difficult in this population [55].

Kid-screen and attachment inventory of all participants who were eligible to perform the questionnaires.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Five Minute Speech Sample—NC group vs Trans-DSI group.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Five Minute Speech Sample—NC group vs Cis-DSI group.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Five Minute Speech Sample—Cis-DSI group vs Trans-DSI group.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Details of each rater scoring and calculation of guessing score by groups of raters who participated to the experimental procedure based on family drawing.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-19647

Transgender fathering: children’s psychological and family outcomes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Condat,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process including those which are raised by the second reviewer in the text itself (see attachments uploaded by reviewer 2

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michel Botbol, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

'AC has received funding for this project from the Pfizer Foundation and the Centre d’Activités et de Recherche en Psychiatrie Infanto-Juvénile (CARPIJ). The sponsor did not intervene in the study design and did not participate in recruitment, analysis of the data or writing of the manuscript.'

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Pfizer

a. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

b. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain as separate "supporting information" files.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

7. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors compare a sample of trans parent families (trans men and cis women with children conceived through donor insemination) with groups of donor insemination and unassisted conception families (both heterosexual-couple parent groups) on child adjustment and family process outcome measures. Very little empirical evidence exists on outcomes for children with trans parents. Trans parent families are growing in visibility and number and empirical data on trans parent families is much needed. In particular, studies using validated assessments of child adjustment (as used here) can make an important contribution, and I am not aware of any other studies with a French sample. I have several comments about the paper that may be of use to the authors.

General comments:

1. In order for the reader to be able to interpret the findings more accurately, more information is needed in the methods section about the measures used, e.g. what is the possible range of scores for each measure, and what was the scale reliability for each measure? How was the FMSS scored (is this a frequency count?) and what do higher scores indicate?

2. For clearer interpretation of the results it would be helpful to see all test statistics and effect sizes included throughout the results section (not just the p-values). There are several places where the authors say ‘very few’ or ‘most’ participants and it would be helpful here to have the Ns and %s included of how many children were in each category (lines 429, 441, 454).

3. I have concerns about the scientific rigour of the family drawing task. It’s not a measure of family environment that I’m particularly familiar with but as far as I’m aware it does not seem to have valid or reliable psychometric properties or to be associated with other child outcomes. I do understand that the measure may be read differently by different audiences and the authors suggest that it may be more recognised by clinicians, but my concern is that its inclusion may detract from the important findings elsewhere in the paper (i.e. those measured using more widely recognised and validated measures like the CBCL). The journal editors’ input would be useful here.

4. There are a several places where I would recommend slight changes to language to be more inclusive, for example the phrase ‘a transgender’ is used a couple of times. I would also suggest using ‘transgender fatherhood’ or ‘trans fatherhood’ rather than ‘the trans factor’. There are also some phrases which could be more idiomatic so I would suggest having the text read by a native English speaker before publication to aid clarity.

5. In a couple of places more context would be useful for readers who are not familiar with trans parent research or assisted reproduction research, e.g. the phrase ‘crossover IVF’ (line 110) may need to be explained. Also in line 121 it may be useful to explain why these estimates are unreliable/low (i.e. that not all trans people will undergo surgical transition).

6. I have an ethical concern about data availability and would recommend considering not making the data available. I am concerned that because the trans parent population is small, even if data are anonymised, participants may still be identifiable. For example, the dataset contains families with three and four children (which is fairly uncommon) – if a dataset also included information about family structure and demographic details the families may be identifiable if this information is put together.

Specific comments

1. line 33 ‘limited’ may be better than ‘paucity of’

2. Could the abstract include the information that this is a French sample?

3. In the introduction, could a little information be included to explain the social context for trans people in France (e.g. how much societal support/opposition is there?)

4. I’m not sure that paragraph three of the introduction (beginning line 126) is necessary. Keeping the article focused on children’s outcomes would make the introduction more streamlined.

5. In introducing hypothesis (i) and (ii) it would make sense to say ‘based on the findings from the first phase of the study’ to explain the hypotheses. The authors do explain this in other places in the article but including the information here would help with understanding these hypotheses. Could the rationale for hypotheses (iii) and (iv) be included?

6. Lines 423-424 – the findings from these three measures seem to be the most important in the paper. Can the finding for each measure be presented separately with the test statistic and p-value included in the text?

7. Line 435 – does ‘friendly environment’ mean friendship groups?

8. line 447 – what direction were the differences in?

9. lines 488 and 526 – findings are reported here that I think should also be in the results section

10. lines 519-521 – I think that these studies include parent-report data but not child-report data. Zadeh et al., 2019 might be a useful reference for child-report data.

11. When discussing the CBCL scores in the discussion, could the authors say what the rates of psychopathology are among the (child) general population in France so that the findings can be interpreted with some context?

12. When discussing the expressed emotion scores it would be useful to know why this is an important construct in family psychology (i.e. what outcomes is it associated with?). If trans parents have higher rates of expressed emotion, does this matter for children’s outcomes?

Reviewer #2: Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) (Limit 200 to 20000 Characters)

Thank you for this important contribution to transgender care and specifically reproductive care for transgender individuals

Please find attached a marked up copy of the manuscript

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jen Hastings, MD

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-19647_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

14 Sep 2020

RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL COMMENTS

1. Data available under request : Our choice was based on ethical restriction. Reviewer 1 think data should not be available at all since anonimity cannot be certain. See our response to his/her comment: Authors are very grateful with reviewer 1 for this comment that we definitively share. We felt that sharing data was compulsory in most journals and we did not check that Plos One offers the possibility not to share the data for individual protection. Therefore as suggested by reviewer 1 we followed this advice. It is now as follow in the revised version of the MS: ‘Availability of data and material: Because of ethical concerns, the data and material cannot be available. The trans parent population is small. Even if data are anonymized, participants may still be identifiable. For example, the dataset contains families with three and four children (which is fairly uncommon) and the families may be identifiable.’

Of course if the reviewer is wrong and the data needs to be available under request we can come back to our previous choice, the explaination is the one given in the revised MS. Contact for availability of the data will be Agnes Condat, MD, PhD agnes.condat@aphp.fr

2. Competing Interests Statement: AC has received funding for this project from the Pfizer Foundation and the Centre d’Activités de Recherche en Psychiatrie Infanto-Juvénile (CARPIJ). The sponsors did not intervene in the study design and did not participate in recruitment, analysis of the data or writing of the manuscript.

Prizer is a commercial funder. None of the authors have any commercial relationship with Pfizer (employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products…). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

3. Regarding the data not shown, the result of the permutation test is now given. Page 17 of the revised MS, it is now: “The permutation test found the same results with a sufficient power [30]: no group of raters were able to guess whose children were sons or girls from transgender fathers (BIOL score = -38, p=0.03; ENDOC score = 19, p=0.36; STUD score = 0, p=1; ADUPSY score = -6, p=0.71; FAMPSY score = 8, p=0.85; with guessing being linked to positive score only and p<0.01 being the level of significance after Bonferroni correction).”

4. Tables have been inculded in the main document

5. Captions for the supporting information are now given at the end of the document

6. The ethical statements was already in the method section.

RESONSE TO REVIEWERS

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors compare a sample of trans parent families (trans men and cis women with children conceived through donor insemination) with groups of donor insemination and unassisted conception families (both heterosexual-couple parent groups) on child adjustment and family process outcome measures. Very little empirical evidence exists on outcomes for children with trans parents. Trans parent families are growing in visibility and number and empirical data on trans parent families is much needed. In particular, studies using validated assessments of child adjustment (as used here) can make an important contribution, and I am not aware of any other studies with a French sample. I have several comments about the paper that may be of use to the authors.

We thank reviewer 1 for his/her encouragements and overall positive view on our MS. We particularly appreciated the feedbacks given. All issues were addressed in the revised version of the MS. We believe that thanks to both reviewers’ comments the MS is much improved.

General comments:

1. In order for the reader to be able to interpret the findings more accurately, more information is needed in the methods section about the measures used, e.g. what is the possible range of scores for each measure, and what was the scale reliability for each measure? How was the FMSS scored (is this a frequency count?) and what do higher scores indicate?

As requested we detailed the scoring method and the psychometrics of the two tests that are the least common: GIIC and FMSS. It is now page 9 of the revised MS: ‘For gender identity, we used the Gender Identity Interview for Children (GIIC) [25]. The GIIC includes 12 questions scored using a 3-item Likert scale which assess affective and cognitive gender confusion within the child. The total score can range from 0 (normal score) to 24 (highest probability of GD) and when the score is above a threshold of 4 the child may be at risk of gender dysphoria. GIIC was the only scale that was not validated in France. To ensure the properties of the French GIIC, we performed an interrater reliability study that found excellent Cronbach alpha (total score = 0.98, factor 1 = 0.95, factor 2 = 0.97) and a ROC analysis to discriminate children with gender incongruence from those who do not (on an independent sample of 25 children) that found the same threshold that the one recommended in the English version (threshold=4 for possible ranges for GIIC total score within 0 and 24).’

[…] and: ‘(2) the Five-Minute Speech Sample (FMSS) [18], which assesses the emotional climate within the family through attitudes and feelings expressed by a relative of a family member termed expressed emotions. The FMSS is based on a material made by a relative towards the child during a recorded session with the following instruction: “I would like to hear from you about your thoughts and feelings about (name of family member) in your own words and without any interruption on my part by questions or comments. When I ask you to start, I would like you to talk to me for 5 minutes, telling me what kind of person is (name of the family member) and how you get along with him/her. Once you start speaking, I prefer not to answer any questions before the end of the 5 minutes”. For each child we recorded separately one session with the mother and one session with the father. There is no specific age range for this instrument. The FMSS distinguishes two main categories of expressed emotions that measure levels of criticism and emotional over-involvement. Rating requires a specific training and each expressed emotion is rated low, intermediate or high. The critical dimension is based on the initial statement, the expressed relationship and the blame or the dissatisfaction supported, whereas the emotional over-involvement includes emotional displays, statements of attitude (e.g., extreme loving), self-sacrificing and overprotection or a lack objectivity, an excess of detail about the past, and more than five positive remarks regarding the child [28]. The number of occurrences of expressed emotions for each category is recorded and produces a percentage. The total score requires the use of algorithm combining the rating of the two categories. The interrater reliability for FMSS scoring was strong (kappa-critical EE=0.64, p=0.008), (kappa-emotional over-involvement EE=0.68, p=0.007), (kappa-EE total=0.88, p<0.001).’

2. For clearer interpretation of the results it would be helpful to see all test statistics and effect sizes included throughout the results section (not just the p-values). There are several places where the authors say ‘very few’ or ‘most’ participants and it would be helpful here to have the Ns and %s included of how many children were in each category (lines 429, 441, 454).

As requested, changes were made accordingly and the exact numbers are now reported. However, in a few occasions we did not repeat in the text all the data that appear in the tables as requested by PlosOne recommendations.

3. I have concerns about the scientific rigour of the family drawing task. It’s not a measure of family environment that I’m particularly familiar with but as far as I’m aware it does not seem to have valid or reliable psychometric properties or to be associated with other child outcomes. I do understand that the measure may be read differently by different audiences and the authors suggest that it may be more recognised by clinicians, but my concern is that its inclusion may detract from the important findings elsewhere in the paper (i.e. those measured using more widely recognised and validated measures like the CBCL). The journal editors’ input would be useful here.

Authors understand the reviewer concern. The idea to use a stimulation (here the family drawing) and to have raters guessing based on the production of participants some characteristics of the participants was already used in other studies including one published in PlosOne (reference 19 in the revised MS). The second reviewer was very positive regarding this experiment. As reviewer 1 proposed, we believe that the Editor in charge will have an input.

4. There are a several places where I would recommend slight changes to language to be more inclusive, for example the phrase ‘a transgender’ is used a couple of times. I would also suggest using ‘transgender fatherhood’ or ‘trans fatherhood’ rather than ‘the trans factor’. There are also some phrases which could be more idiomatic so I would suggest having the text read by a native English speaker before publication to aid clarity.

We thank reviewer 1 for this comment. The text was edited for English by American Journal Expert (see certificate). However, we are aware that not being English fluent may be problematic. As requested we changed ‘trans factor’ for ‘transgender fatherhood’. We are also very grateful with reviewer 2 who kindly edited English in the MS. All changes were made accordingly.

5. In a couple of places more context would be useful for readers who are not familiar with trans parent research or assisted reproduction research, e.g. the phrase ‘crossover IVF’ (line 110) may need to be explained. Also in line 121 it may be useful to explain why these estimates are unreliable/low (i.e. that not all trans people will undergo surgical transition).

We thank reviewer 1 for this comment that was also shared by reviewer 2 who kindly suggested changes. It is now in the revised version of the MS page 4: ‘Currently, it remains technically impossible to develop the capacity to procreate after gender affirming surgery that involves removal of gonads, but it is possible to help trans people use their own gametes with assisted reproductive technology (ART).’ […] ‘In the first case, if the transgender man has self-conserved his oocytes/ovarian tissue before the transition, the couple may consider crossover in vitro fertilization (IVF) meaning that the transgender man provides oocytes that are microinjected with sperm of a male donor to obtain embryos that are transferred to his partner.’ […] ‘Heterosexual couples in which the male partner is a transgender man can turn to ART through artificial insemination with donor sperm insemination (DSI). For these couples, other possibilities are theoretically available. If the transgender man has self-conserved his oocytes/ovarian tissue before transition, or has retained his uterus and ovaries, the couple may consider using his eggs or ovarian tissue for his uterus-bearing partner, or he may consider pregnancy.’

Regarding the estimates it is now page 4 of the revised MS: ‘The number of transgender people and transparent families has been estimated in France from the number of transitional surgeries counted by the national health insurance fund, leading to a very low and unreliable prevalence between 1/10,000 and 1/50,000 as not all trans people will undergo surgical transition [5]’

6. I have an ethical concern about data availability and would recommend considering not making the data available. I am concerned that because the trans parent population is small, even if data are anonymised, participants may still be identifiable. For example, the dataset contains families with three and four children (which is fairly uncommon) – if a dataset also included information about family structure and demographic details the families may be identifiable if this information is put together.

Authors are very grateful with reviewer 1 for this comment that we definitively share. We felt that sharing data was compulsory in most journals and we did not check that Plos One offers the possibility not to share the data for individual protection. Therefore as suggested by reviewer 1 we followed this advice. It is now as follow in the revised version of the MS: ‘Availability of data and material: Because of ethical concerns, the data and material cannot be available. The trans parent population is small. Even if data are anonymized, participants may still be identifiable. For example, the dataset contains families with three and four children (which is fairly uncommon) and the families may be identifiable.’

Specific comments

1. line 33 ‘limited’ may be better than ‘paucity of’

The change was made accordingly.

2. Could the abstract include the information that this is a French sample?

The change was made accordingly.

3. In the introduction, could a little information be included to explain the social context for trans people in France (e.g. how much societal support/opposition is there?)

4. I’m not sure that paragraph three of the introduction (beginning line 126) is necessary. Keeping the article focused on children’s outcomes would make the introduction more streamlined.

We decided to join these two points in our response because they are related. We completely agree with reviewer 1 . The paragraph beginning line 126 was intended to explain the social context and its tensions in the case of France. We revised the MS to clarify this point.

5. In introducing hypothesis (i) and (ii) it would make sense to say ‘based on the findings from the first phase of the study’ to explain the hypotheses. The authors do explain this in other places in the article but including the information here would help with understanding these hypotheses. Could the rationale for hypotheses (iii) and (iv) be included?

We thank reviewer 1 for this comment that makes the introduction easier to follow. As requested we moved the rational that appeared in the methods to the introduction.

6. Lines 423-424 – the findings from these three measures seem to be the most important in the paper. Can the finding for each measure be presented separately with the test statistic and p-value included in the text?

The change was made accordingly.

7. Line 435 – does ‘friendly environment’ mean friendship groups?

We thank reviewer 1 for this comment. ‘Friendship groups’ was what we wanted to mean. The change was made accordingly.

8. line 447 – what direction were the differences in?

We thank reviewer 1 for this comment. Indeed the use of the word differences here was inappropriate as we are showing correlation in table 2. Sorry for this mistake. To clarify this issue in the revised version of the manuscript we changed the sentence as follow. It is now page 13 of the revised version of the MS: “Low correlation coefficients were only observed between fathers’ and mothers’ responses to certain domains”

9. lines 488 and 526 – findings are reported here that I think should also be in the results section

We thank reviewer 1 for this comment. IQ score were given in table 1. They are now also indicated in the text of the result section (see previous response minor point 6). Similarly, total score from the Gender Identity Interview is now also given in the text of the revised result section.

10. lines 519-521 – I think that these studies include parent-report data but not child-report data. Zadeh et al., 2019 might be a useful reference for child-report data.

We thank reviewer 1 for pointing Zadeh et al. study. This was very appropriate. We included a sentence to quote the interesting results of this study. It is now page 15 of the revised version of the MS: “Qualitative studies from parent-report data found that the children of transgender parents reported feeling protective towards their parent when they noticed discrimination or social rejection of their transgender parent [37-39]. The only qualitative study from an UK child-report data (33 children and adolescents of whom 23 were siblings) found that parental gender identity did not adversely impact upon how children and adolescents perceived their relationship with their parent as they expressed a sense of relational continuity. However, it might be otherwise relevant to their experiences both within and outside of the home with some of them expressing feelings of ambiguous loss, or the need to become responsible or to negotiate family display [40].”

11. When discussing the CBCL scores in the discussion, could the authors say what the rates of psychopathology are among the (child) general population in France so that the findings can be interpreted with some context?

The change was made accordingly (line 504 of the revised version of the MS).

12. When discussing the expressed emotion scores it would be useful to know why this is an important construct in family psychology (i.e. what outcomes is it associated with?). If trans parents have higher rates of expressed emotion, does this matter for children’s outcomes?

We thank reviewer 1 for this comment that should help clarifying how interpreting the concept of expressed emotions. We added the following sentences in the revised version of the MS. It is now page 16: “Regarding Expressed Emotions investigated with the FMSS, discussion should be cautious as expressed emotions have no specific psychopathological value per se. In the literature, FMSS Expressed Emotions or subscores were predictors of better outcome in young individuals with anorexia nervosa [27] or of poorer outcome in adult individuals with anorexia nervosa [44, 46] or schizophrenia [47].” The corresponding references were added.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2

Reviewer #2: Review Comments to the Author

Thank you for this important contribution to transgender care and specifically reproductive care for transgender individuals

We thank reviewer 2 for his/her encouragements and overall positive view on our MS. We particularly appreciated the feedbacks given and obviously the kind commitment in editing English of our MS. Even if we paid a professional editing service recommended by most Publisher (including Plos), we are aware that given our topic some formulation may carry ambiguity or negativity from one language to another.

Please find attached a marked up copy of the manuscript

Again, thank you so much for being so precise on the reviewing. All changes except one were made accordingly to your proposals of rewriting or your queries when some ambiguous formulations needed clarifications. All changes are available in the version of the revised MS in which they appear in yellow. Only on one point we had to maintain our previous formulation, it is about the suggested change for the title, namely, to replace “trangender fathering” by “transgender parenting”. Despite the relevance of this suggestion on which we fully agree with you, we also had to consider the requests of reviewer 1 which were to be as precise as possible. Therefore we kept the title “transgender fathering” which more precisely indicates the subject of the study.

E.g. In the introduction section, we now give more information for readers that are not familiar with ART and transgender. It is now in the revised version of the MS: “Heterosexual couples in which the male partner is a transgender man can turn to ART through artificial insemination with donor sperm insemination (DSI). For these couples, other possibilities are theoretically available. If the transgender man has self-conserved his oocytes/ovarian tissue before transition, or has retained his uterus and ovaries, the couple may consider using his eggs or ovarian tissue for his uterus-bearing partner, or he may consider pregnancy. Transgender women who have a male partner may ask for the help of a surrogate mother in countries where this is allowed and if this surrogate is not also a donor of her own oocytes for egg donation. In the first case, if the transgender man has self-conserved his oocytes/ovarian tissue before the transition, the couple may consider crossover in vitro fertilization (IVF) meaning that the transgender man provides oocytes that are microinjected with sperm of a male donor to obtain embryos that are transferred to his partner.”

E.g. In the method section, we do not use any more experimental procedure as heading and in the MS. We decided to be ‘just descriptive’. It is now page 10 of the revised MS: “Guessing transgender fatherhood from children’s family drawing”

Submitted filename: RESONSE TO REVIEWERS Trans fathering PlosOne.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Oct 2020

Transgender fathering: children’s psychological and family outcomes

PONE-D-20-19647R1

Dear Dr Condat ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michel Botbol, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

9 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-19647R1

Transgender fathering: children’s psychological and family outcomes

Dear Dr. Condat:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Pr Michel Botbol

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE