Psychosocial Correlates of Chest Binding in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth

Abstract

Purpose:

Chest binding involves the compression of chest tissue for masculine gender expression among transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth. This study aimed to assess binding trends and their associations with quality of life, self-esteem, and psychological symptoms among TGD youth in Türkiye.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted between November 2019 and November 2023 and involved TGD youth and cisgender controls. Data collection included a survey on binding practices, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to assess self-esteem, the Turkish version of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF-TR) to evaluate quality of life, and the Brief Symptom Inventory to measure psychological symptoms.

Results:

Thirty-three TGD participants (20.2 ± 2.7 years old) and 30 controls (20.8 ± 3.0 years old) were included. Most participants reported that not binding posed significant challenges in social interactions, sports, and expressing gender-aligned behaviors. Anxiety and somatization were inversely correlated with weekly binding duration. The TGD group had significantly higher (p < 0.05) somatization and global severity scores, lower (p < 0.01) psychological and environment scores of quality of life, but similar self-esteem levels. The psychology domain of the WHOQOL-BREF-TR was lower (p < 0.001) in the shorter binding group compared with controls but similar in the control and longer binding groups. Overall, psychological symptoms were lower (p < 0.01) in the control group than in the shorter binding group and not different from the longer binding group.

Conclusion:

These findings highlight the nuanced relationship between binding and mental health, with higher psychological distress and lower quality of life in the TGD group compared with controls, while longer binding may offer some psychological stability, underscoring the need for improved access to gender-affirming care for overall well-being.

Introduction

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth strive to live in their affirmed gender; nevertheless, challenges related to trying to express their authentic selves considerably impact mental health outcomes.¹ Besides gender-affirming medical care, support for social transition, which relates to the outward expression of gender identity, is equally important.² During social transition, TGD youth cultivate their gender expression by aligning their physical appearance and clothing with their gender identity.³

The development of secondary sexual characteristics, particularly the growth of breast tissue, often leads to significant distress and dissatisfaction and frequently results in practices such as chest binding, where the breast tissue is compressed to minimize its visibility and to create a flatter chest appearance.^4,5 More than 50% of transmasculine and nonbinary youth report reduced participation in daily life due to the presence of chest tissue.⁶ The experience of chest dysphoria is strongly associated with increased levels of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and diminished life satisfaction.^6–8 Empirical research highlights the widespread nature of chest binding; for instance, a study conducted in Australia found that 87% of trans men participants reported using binders.⁹ Among transgender boys, 82.4% reported chest binding, whereas 30.2% to 58.0% of assigned female at birth adolescents with other gender-diverse identities also reported this practice.¹⁰

Binding is performed by TGD youth as a means to manage gender dysphoria, enhance safety in social contexts, and boost self-confidence, potentially contributing to improved mental health outcomes.^5,7,11,12 Considering that approximately 51% of TGD adolescents have attempted suicide,¹³ the mental health improvements associated with binding are of significant importance. Many TGD individuals view chest binding as a necessary rather than optional practice, primarily due to its vital role in supporting mental health and well-being.¹⁴ Chest binding empowers TGD individuals by enhancing their sense of agency over their identity and how they present themselves to their social environments.¹⁵

The literature presents both the mental health benefits of chest binding and its role as a crucial tool for gender affirmation.^15–22 However, one study also indicates adverse physical health outcomes associated with the practice.¹² Beyond these findings, the attitudes of many health care professionals who are either unfamiliar with chest binding or respond negatively to it contribute to the isolation of TGD youth from health care services. As a result, many individuals turn to online sources for information, where guidance on safe binding practices is often insufficient, potentially exacerbating physical adverse effects.^4,23

The psychological and physical effects of chest binding, in particular, represent a significant yet inadequately understood health issue among TGD youth and remain an area of ongoing research. Further exploration of binding practices and their effects is essential for informing the implementation and ongoing development of gender-affirming care. These considerations are particularly relevant in contexts where access to gender-affirming care is limited, as structural and sociopolitical barriers can further complicate the well-being of TGD youth.²⁴ TGD youth in Türkiye face significant barriers in accessing gender-affirming care due to a combination of medical, legal, and sociopolitical challenges. The number of health care professionals specializing in transgender health is limited, and only a few hospitals provide gender-affirming services, leading to long waiting times for care.

Legal recognition of gender identity requires a lengthy court process, which mandates compulsory sterilizing surgeries. In addition, the broader political climate in Türkiye has become increasingly negative toward TGD individuals, influencing public attitudes and health care accessibility.^25–27 These factors create substantial obstacles to timely and affirming care, making binding practices a crucial aspect of gender expression and dysphoria management for many TGD youth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the practice of binding and its psychosocial correlates, specifically investigating its associations with quality of life, self-esteem, and psychological symptoms among TGD youth in Türkiye.

Methods

Participants and procedures

The “TGD group” consisted of 33 youth aged 18–24 years who were assigned female at birth, met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5^th edition²⁸ criteria for Gender Dysphoria, and were accessing health care for gender dysphoria at the Division of Adolescent Medicine and the Department of Psychiatry at Hacettepe University, a tertiary care center that accepts patients from across the country. Eligibility criteria included the following: (1) having no chest surgery, (2) using a form of binding for chest compression, and (3) not using puberty blockers and/or hormone therapy.

The “control group” comprised 30 cisgender youth assigned female at birth, aged 18–24 years, who were recruited from volunteer college students responding to social media posts disseminated across Hacettepe University. Eligibility criteria were: (1) no experience of chest dysphoria and (2) never bound their chests. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The Institutional Review Board at Hacettepe University approved the study (GO 19/682) conducted in two periods due to COVID-19: November 2019–March 2020 and April 2022–November 2023.

Measures

The sociodemographic questionnaire was developed by researchers and included open-ended questions regarding age, gender identity, educational status, where and with whom participants live, and age of thelarche and menarche. Only the study group answered the second part of the questionnaire, including gender-affirming experience related open-ended and yes/no response options. These questions asked about disclosure of gender identity to family/friends/partners and at school/work, use of chosen name, and use of clothes that participants considered congruent with their gender identity alone/home, at home with family, school/workplace, and in public. The use of chosen name by family/friends/school/work acquaintances, and whether there is a legal name change is also asked with yes/no response options.

Chest dysphoria and chest binding practices

To assess the binding practice of the study group, survey items from the Binding Health Project¹² were adapted and translated into Turkish with permission. Some questions were modified and additional questions were added. Concerning chest dysphoria and binding practices, we assessed when participants began experiencing chest dysphoria, for how long participants had been binding, and contexts or settings where participants engaged in binding (alone/family/friends/school or work). Chest dysphoria was assessed in both groups using one question from the Hamburg Body Drawing Scale,²⁹ “How satisfied are you currently with the following of your body features: chest/breast?”, with 5-point Likert-type response options ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied.”

The participants indicated methods used for binding among multiple options, including commercial binder, one or more sports bras, athletic compression wear, duct tape, plastic wrap, elastic bandage, homemade binder, and an open-ended option for alternative methods. How many days on average participants bound over the last week, and how many hours on average participants bound on those days were asked. In addition, participants answered a 5-point Likert-type question ranging from “not at all” to “a great extent” about the extent to which their appearance, when not binding, posed challenges in performing some activities.

The Brief Symptom Inventory is a self-report assessment tool designed for adolescents and adults to screen for various psychological symptoms.³⁰ It consists of 53 items, organized into nine subscales and three global index scores, of which only the Global Severity Index was used in this study. Each item evaluated the intensity of distress during the past seven days on a 5-point Likert scale. The Turkish adaptation study³¹ revealed five subscales: “anxiety,” “depression,” “negative self,” “somatization,” and “hostility” and scores were calculated by summing the values for the items included in that subscale and dividing by the number of items. Global Severity Index was calculated by summing the scores of the five subscales and dividing the total by the number of items in the inventory. Higher scores indicated severity. Global Severity Index score >1.0 indicated psychopathological symptoms. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.97 for the current sample.

The Turkish version of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life-BREF is a self-report measure that evaluates the participant’s sense of quality of life.^32,33 It included 26 questions assessing four domains: physical, psychological, social relationships, and environment. Each item evaluated quality of life in the past two weeks on a five-point Likert scale. Domain scores were calculated from the mean item scores and transformed to a scale of 20–100. Higher scores indicated a better quality of life. In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.84.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was developed to measure self-esteem and comprises 63 items divided into 12 subtests.³⁴ For this study, the 10-item Self-Esteem subscale adapted to Turkish³⁴ was employed. Scores were calculated and grouped as recommended:³⁵ 0–1 point as “high”, 2–4 points as “medium”, and 5–6 points as “low” self-esteem. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.80.

Statistical analysis

Analyses were performed with SPSS (22.0).³⁶ Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation or median (Mdn) and interquartile range (IQR). The distribution for each variable was checked using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The two-tailed Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to compare groups. For each participant, the “personal binding rate” was calculated by dividing the duration of binding (years) by the duration of the same individual’s chest dysphoria (years). This rate was considered a personal index for the proportion of time interval that binding was practiced while chest dysphoria existed. The median value of the sample was utilized as the cut-off point, forming two groups: below the median, then “shorter binding”; above it, then “longer binding.” The third group for comparison was the control group. Spearman’s correlation was used for the analysis of bivariate correlations. A p value of 0.05 was considered as the significance threshold.

Results

The descriptive data for the TGD and the control groups are presented in Table 1. No differences were observed between the groups.

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristics of the Transgender and Gender Diverse and Control Groups

Descriptive Variables	TGD (n = 33)	Control (n = 30)	p
Age (years), mean ± SD	20.2 ± 2.7	20.8 ± 3.0	0.369
Final educational attainment, n (%)			0.312
Primary and secondary school	9 (27.3)	5 (16.7)
High school and above	24 (72.7)	25 (83.3)
Living with family, n (%)	24 (72.7)	17 (56.7)	0.182
Gender identity
Man	22 (66.7)	—
Trans man	11 (33.3)	—
Woman	—	31 (100)
Age of thelarche (years)	11.8 ± 2.0	11.4 ± 1.4	0.348
Age of menarche (years)	12.6 ± 1.5	12.5 ± 1.5	0.757

SD, standard deviation; TGD, transgender and gender diverse.

Gender-affirming experiences, chest dysphoria, and binding practices of the TGD group

All TGD youth were using gender-congruent names. Four participants already had unisex names, whereas the remaining 87.9% preferred gender-congruent names. Nineteen (57.6%) of the TGD youth reported that their families were not using their chosen gender-congruent names. The chosen name was not used by friends of two (6.1%) participants, or by school/work acquaintances of 10 (30.3%) participants. Two (6.1%) participants reported having legally changed their names.

The duration of chest dysphoria was 7.6 ± 2.5 years. The binding duration was 4.2 ± 2.4 years. The TGD group had a lower score (Mdn = 1 ± 0.17) than the control group (Mdn = 4 ± 1) for the chest/breast satisfaction question (U = 17.5, p ≤ 0.001), showing more severe dysphoria. The median frequency of binding in the last week was 7 (IQR: 2, min–max: 2–7) days. The median daily duration of binding was 12 (IQR:7, min–max: 5–24) hours.

Among TGD participants, 56.3% (n = 18) reported that not binding posed a great challenge while engaging with new acquaintances; 68.8% felt that not wearing a binder posed a great challenge in social or community settings; and 54.8% reported that being without a binder posed extreme difficulty in expressing behavior aligned with their gender identity. Regarding sports/exercise, 68.8% indicated significant challenges, while 84.4% felt that not wearing a binder greatly impacted their ability to swim. Gender affirmation related features and binding practices of the participants are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Gender-Affirming Path Related Features and Binding Practices of the Transgender and Gender Diverse Group

	n (%)
Coming out as trans, n (%)a
To family	31 (93.9)
To friends	32 (97.0)
To partners	26 (78.8)
At school/work	26 (78.8)
Gender-congruent namea	33 (100.0)
Gender-congruent clothesa
Alone/home	28 (84.8)
Home with family	32 (97.0)
School/Workplace	31 (93.9)
In public	32 (97.0)
Binding context or settings
Alone	22 (34.9)
With family	27 (81.8)
With friends	32 (97.0)
School/Workplace	32 (97.0)
Methods used for binding
Professional binder	27 (81.8)
Single sports bra	15 (45.5)
Multiple sports bra	7 (21.2)
Elastic bandage	4 (12.1)
Homemade binder	2 (6.1)
Duct tape	1 (3.0)
Plastic wrap	1 (3.0)
Other	4 (12.1)

^a Transgender and gender diverse youth who have come out, use gender congruent names and clothes.

Relationship between binding duration and quality of life, psychological symptoms, and self-esteem scores of the TGD group

The correlations of weekly (day) and daily (hours) binding durations with psychological symptoms and quality of life scores of the TGD group are presented in Table 3. There was no correlation between binding durations and domains of the quality-of-life scale. Weekly binding duration correlated with anxiety (r = −0.421, p < 0.05) and somatization scores (r = −0.405, p < 0.05) but not with Global Severity Index score and other Brief Symptom subscales.

Table 3.

Correlations of Weekly (Day) and Daily (Hours) Binding Durations with Brief Symptom Inventory and Turkish Version of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life BREF Scores of the Transgender and Gender Diverse Group

	BSI						WHOQOL-BREF-TR
	Dep	Anx	NegS	Som	Host	Global Severity Index	Phy	Psy	SocR	Env
Weekly binding (day)
r	0.190	−0.421	−0.257	−0.405	−0.308	−0.324	0.010	0.132	−0.122	0.082
p	0.291	0.015	0.149	0.019	0.081	0.066	0.956	0.464	0.498	0.649
Daily binding (hours)
r	0.116	−0.300	−0.024	−0.291	−0.043	−0.192	−0.044	−0.007	−0.140	0.049
p	0.520	0.089	0.894	0.100	0.814	0.283	0.810	0.971	0.436	0.787

Statistically significant results are in bold.

Anx, anxiety; BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; Dep, depression; Env, environment; Host, hostility; NegS, negative self; Phy, physical; Psy, psychological; SocR, social relationships; WHOQOL-BREF-TR, Turkish version of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life-BREF.

r: Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

Weekly binding durations of those with Global Severity Index >1.0 (Mdn = 5.85) and Global Severity Index <1.0 (Mdn = 6.77) were not different (U = 88, p > 0.05). In addition, daily binding durations were similar (Mdn = 14.23 and 12.25, respectively; U = 102, p > 0.05). Similarly, there was no difference (χ² = 0.002, p > 0.05) between weekly binding duration among low (Mdn = 5.75), middle (Mdn = 6.27), and high self-esteem (Mdn = 6.29) groups. No difference (χ² = 0.184, p > 0.05) was found between daily binding duration among low (Mdn = 11.75), middle (Mdn = 12.93), and high self-esteem (Mdn = 13.50) groups.

Comparison of psychological symptoms, quality of life, and self-esteem score between TGD and control groups

Comparisons of the measures’ scores for the TGD and control groups are presented in Table 4. Somatization score and Global Severity Index score were significantly lower in the control group (p < 0.05). The psychological and environment domains’ scores of the quality-of-life scale were significantly lower in the TGD group (p < 0.01). The distribution of the groups over the self-esteem scale and Global Severity Index >1 categories were not different.

Table 4.

Comparisons of the Brief Symptom Inventory, Global Severity Index, Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale and Turkish Version of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life-BREF Scores for Transgender and Gender Diverse and Control Groups

	TGD (n = 33)	Control (n = 30)	p
BSI
Depression	1.6 ± 0.91	1.12 ± 0.86	0.055
Anxiety	1 ± 0.98	0.53 ± 0.69	0.126
Negative self	1 ± 0.90	0.71 ± 0.61	0.077
Somatization	0.77 ± 0.95	0.61 ± 0.75	0.041 a
Hostility	1 ± 1.01	0.71 ± 0.79	0.099
Global Severity Index	1.2 ± 0.84	0.75 ± 0.69	0.036 a
WHOQOL-BREF-TR
Physical	57.1 ± 10.2	60.7 ± 9.7	0.186
Psychological	41.6 ± 20.3	62.5 ± 16.4	<0.001 a
Social relationships	75 ± 21.6	66.6 ± 18.5	0.579
Environment	59.4 ± 15.9	71.8 ± 12.8	0.001 a
Global Severity Index >1, n (%)	20 (60.6)	13 (43.3)	0.170
RSES, n (%)			0.609
High	4 (12.1)	2 (6.7)
Medium	15 (45.5)	12 (40)
Low	14 (42.2)	16 (53.3)

Statistically significant results are in bold.

^a Mann–Whitney U test.

RSES, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

Comparison of psychological symptoms, quality of life, and self-esteem scores among control, longer binding, and shorter binding groups

The three groups differed in the psychological and environment domain scores of the quality-of-life scale after the Bonferroni correction. The psychological domain score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for the control group compared with the shorter binding group, whereas the longer binding group’s scores were similar to those of the control and the shorter binding groups. The environment domain score of the quality-of-life scale was significantly higher for the control group compared with both short and longer binding groups. There were no differences between longer and shorter binding groups. Comparisons of the quality-of-life scale domains among groups are presented in Figure 1.

FIG. 1.

Comparison of the WHOQOL-BREF-TR domains among control and longer or shorter binding groups. WHOQOL-BREF-TR, Turkish version of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life-BREF. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

On the contrary, no difference among these groups was observed for the Brief Symptom subscales. However, Global Severity Index score was significantly lower (p < 0.01) in the control group compared with in the shorter binding group. TGD youth who bound for longer were not different from the control and the shorter binding groups. Comparisons of the Brief Symptom subscales and Global Severity Index score among groups are presented in Figure 2. There was no difference among groups across self-esteem scale categories (p > 0.05).

FIG. 2.

Comparison of Brief Symptom Inventory subscales and the Global Severity Index among control and longer or shorter binding groups. BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory. **p < 0.01.

Discussion

Gender-affirming practices are vital for the well-being of TGD individuals, as they align gender identity with outward presentation, reducing dysphoria, enhancing social connections, and improving mental health and quality of life. Understanding the impact of binding practices on well-being is crucial for optimizing care strategies.^1,37,38 This study aimed to explore the psychosocial impact of chest binding among TGD youth, focusing on mental health outcomes, quality of life, and self-esteem.

Our findings highlight the significant psychosocial challenges faced by TGD youth when not wearing a binder, underscoring the importance of binding, particularly in social, recreational, and community settings. When individuals cannot bind, their agency in gender presentation is significantly diminished. More than half of participants reported difficulties engaging with new acquaintances, and more than two-thirds faced challenges in community or social settings without a binder. In addition, more than half experienced extreme difficulty expressing behaviors aligned with their gender identity when not binding, reflecting the critical role of binding in gender affirmation.

Physical activities such as swimming and exercise presented further barriers, with participants reporting significant difficulties in these contexts. These results align with previous research showing that binding plays a vital role in reducing gender dysphoria and improving social integration for TGD individuals.^7,17 For many, binding offers a sense of liberation and affirms their gender identity, improving their ability to be recognized and validated as their identified gender in public spaces.^15,16,19

In our sample, longer weekly binding durations were associated with lower anxiety and somatization symptoms among TGD youth. These findings indicate that extended binding may alleviate some psychological symptoms, potentially through the reduction of dysphoria and increased comfort with gender expression. Prior studies also support that binding offers emotional relief.^14,17 We did not find correlations between binding duration and the domains of quality of life, global symptom severity, and self-esteem suggesting that binding duration alone may not significantly impact overall well-being or mental health outcomes beyond specific symptoms.

This highlights the nuanced role of binding, which provides symptom relief but may not address all psychological or emotional health aspects. This underscores the complexity of the relationship between binding and mental health, reinforcing the need for comprehensive, individualized health care strategies that monitor both psychological outcomes and potential physical impacts.¹⁷

The TGD group showed higher somatization and overall psychopathology with elevated Global Severity Index score, indicating higher psychological distress than the controls. The TGD participants also had lower quality-of-life scores in the psychological and environment domains, suggesting struggles with mental well-being, self-image, and supportive environments. These challenges likely arise from societal stigma and discrimination, as described by the minority stress model, which links prejudice to poor mental health in sexual and gender minority groups.³⁹

Despite higher psychological distress, the proportion of TGD individuals with severe psychopathology (Global Severity Index >1.0) was similar to that of controls. This suggests that while TGD youth face more psychological challenges, their rates of severe mental health issues are comparable to their cisgender peers. The similarity in self-esteem scores highlights the complexity of mental health among TGD individuals. These findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions that enhance both mental health and access to supportive environments.⁴⁰

The comparison among control, shorter binding, and longer binding groups revealed that psychological and environmental well-being significantly favored the control group. Specifically, the shorter binding group reported significantly lower psychological well-being than the control group, suggesting that limited binding may be insufficient for alleviating distress related to chest dysphoria. Notably, TGD youth who bound for longer showed no significant differences in the psychological domain of quality of life compared with their cisgender peers, suggesting that extended binding may reduce some psychological distress. The environment domain of quality of life was highest in the control group, suggesting that TGD youth who bind for shorter and longer durations experience challenges in accessing supportive external resources.

These findings highlight that external challenges and stressors may persist for TGD youth, even with gender-affirming practices such as binding. Addressing these disparities requires not only psychological support but also systemic efforts to improve the social and environmental conditions that impact the lives of TGD individuals.⁴¹ In this comparison, we also found that even though there were no significant differences in the Brief Symptom Inventory subscales across groups, a higher Global Severity Index score in the shorter binding group compared with the control group points to elevated overall psychological distress among the shorter binding group. TGD youth who bind for longer exhibit Global Severity Index score comparable to both the control group and the shorter binding group, suggesting that longer binding may provide some relief or stability in psychological well-being over time. For self-esteem scores, no group differences were found, indicating that binding duration and gender identity do not directly impact self-regard.

Limitations

The relatively small sample size, which may affect the robustness of the findings, is a limitation. In addition, the assessments were based on self-reports, introducing potential biases. The study was conducted at a single center, limiting the diversity of the sample, although this is a tertiary care center that accepts patients from across the country. The study was cross sectional and, therefore, assessments of binding duration are retrospective and summative rather than prospective. As the participants were drawn from a clinic providing gender-affirming care, the results may not be generalizable to broader populations of TGD individuals who may not have access to such services.

Furthermore, there were no TGD participants in the sample who did not bind, which makes it difficult to determine whether the differences observed between the TGD and cisgender groups were due to gender, binding, or both. In addition, we did not collect data on whether participants were planning to undergo chest masculinization surgery. Access to this procedure in Türkiye is significantly limited due to a shortage of specialized surgeons, high costs, and the lack of insurance coverage. The psychological impact of desiring surgery but being unable to access it, leading to prolonged binding, may influence the severity of outcome measures. Unfortunately, our study was not designed to assess this potential effect, representing a limitation in our findings.

Conclusion

Our findings provide insights into the nuanced relationship between binding and mental health, contributing to ongoing efforts to support TGD youth. Comparisons between TGD and control groups revealed higher Global Severity Index score and lower quality of life for the TGD group, particularly in psychological and environmental domains, although longer binding may provide some relief or stability in psychological well-being over time. Ultimately, although binding serves as an essential coping strategy, it also presents barriers to physical activity and social engagement.

These findings emphasize the importance of improving access to gender-affirming interventions, such as top surgery, to mitigate the long-term reliance on binding and promote overall well-being for TGD youth. This is consistent with recommendations^12,42 to educate providers on binding-related health impacts and to promote safer practices where binding is a long-term strategy. In addition, these findings support ongoing efforts to improve health care strategies tailored for TGD youth, addressing not only access to gender-affirming practices but also monitoring for mental health risks.

Abbreviations Used

Anx

Anxiety

BSI

Brief Symptom Inventory

Dep

Depression

Env

Environment

GSI

Global Severity Index

Host

Hostility

IQR

Interquartile range

Mdn

Median

NegS

Negative self

Phy

Physical

Psy

Psychological

RSES

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

SocR

Social relationships

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

TGD

Transgender and gender diverse

WHOQOL-BREF-TR

Turkish version of the World Health Organization's Quality of Life -Brief version

Authors’ Contributions

Z.T.: Writing—original draft, conceptualization, methodology, investigation. S.A. and M.P.K.: Writing—review and editing, conceptualization, methodology, investigation. K.B.: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, supervision. All the authors read and approved the final article.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author Disclosure Statement

No conflict of interest to declare.

Funding Information

The authors have no funding to disclose.

Cite this article as: Tüzün Z, Akgül S, Pehlivantürk Kızılkan M, Başar K (2025) Psychosocial correlates of chest binding in transgender and gender-diverse youth, Transgender Health 10:4, 355–363, DOI: 10.1089/trgh.2024.0240.