Проблема терминологического обозначения феномена небинарного полоролевого позиционирования в психиатрии: конфликт между научной и политической корректностью

Many trans and gender diverse (TGD) people have gender identities that are not exclusively male or female but instead fall in-between or outside of the gender binary (non-binary). It remains unclear if and how those with non-binary gender identity differ from TGD individuals with binary identities. We aimed to understand the sociodemographic and mental health characteristics of people with non-binary identities compared with binary TGD identities. We performed a retrospective audit of new consultations for gender dysphoria between 2011 and 2016 in three clinical settings in Melbourne, Australia; (1) Equinox Clinic, an adult primary care clinic, (2) an adult endocrine specialist clinic, and (3) the Royal Children's Hospital, a child and adolescent specialist referral clinic. Age (grouped by decade), gender identity, sociodemographic, and mental health conditions were recorded. Of 895 TGD individuals, 128 (14.3%) had a non-binary gender. Proportions differed by clinical setting; 30.4% of people attending the adult primary care clinic, 7.4% attending the adult endocrine specialist clinic, and 8.0% attending the pediatric clinic identified as non-binary. A total of 29% of people in the 21-30-year-old age-group had a non-binary gender identity, higher than all other age-groups. Compared to TGD people with a binary gender identity, non-binary people had lower rates of gender-affirming interventions, and a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, and illicit drug use. Tailoring clinical services to be inclusive of non-binary people and strategies to support mental health are required. Further research to better understand health needs and guide evidence-based gender-affirming interventions for non-binary people are needed.

Chief complaint: “I feel like I have the brain of a man. Am I crazy?” On her first visit to a psychiatrist ( J.M.B.), “Ms. C,” a 48year-old woman, asked this question about her confused gender identity. Having also discovered a primary sexual attraction to women, Ms. C was having difficulty reconciling her church’s injunctions against sinful homosexual activities with her sense of herself as fundamentally male. She was dressed in a subtly frilly blouse and leather jacket she called “my leather-and-lace look.” Encircling each wrist were tattooed bracelets, traceries of curlicues and rosebuds that gently contradicted pearl earrings and a delicate gold locket. Born in the early 1950s and raised resolutely as a girl, Ms. C did not learn until she was 23 and married the unusual circumstances of her birth. Her mother finally divulged that she had entered the world with strange-looking genitals—neither male nor female. Doctors told her parents it was best to remove the odd tissue, fashion what remained to look female, and raise her as if nothing unusual had happened. At 6 months, surgeons removed both external tissue and presumed intra-abdominal testicular tissue and fashioned labia around the vaginal entrance she had always had. In grade school, she was told her large abdominal scar resulted from herniorrhaphy. At 12, after starting daily estrogen pills to induce puberty, she developed breasts and feminine curves, although without menarche or an increase in height beyond 5 feet. Her mother said she could not have children but did not explain why. She recalls being a tomboy who preferred boys for playmates. Because of her small stature and feminine appearance, however, boys were not particularly comfortable hanging out with her. Then, as now, she identified with the way males think rather than a sense of being physically male. She dated boys in high school, had a sexual experience with a woman during college, and married a man with whom she enjoyed satisfying marital relations for nearly two decades until they experienced a menage a trois. Her husband fell in love with the other woman, and she kindled awareness of her greater attraction to women than men. The marriage ended, and she embarked upon two long-term lesbian relationships and a struggle with alcoholism. Ms. C found sobriety and her church while that second relationship was unraveling. Welcomed and spiritually nurtured by church members, she felt happy except for increasing discontent with her pastor’s insistence that homosexual desires were her “cross to bear” and her options were either heterosexual marriage or celibacy. On one hand, her personal theology concurred that homosexuality was against God’s plan. On the other, she struggled with identifying herself as either man or woman, a dilemma her pastor could not solve. Ms. C’s childhood medical records had been lost. The psychiatrist asked if she had been karyotyped, given her unusual birth. She did not know. When she was born, chromosome testing was not routinely available. Given medical advice to raise her unquestioningly as a girl, the issue had not resurfaced. The psychiatrist suggested the test, and when results revealed 45,X/ 46,XY chromosomes, 75% the latter, the fragments—the childhood operation, hormones, her short stature, “brain of a man”—fell into place. She immediately reported feeling “less of a freak” now that she had a name—“intersexual”—for her condition.

Clinical research on transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) adolescents has focused on binary individuals or often not differentiated among gender identities. Recent studies suggest that a considerable proportion of TGNC adolescents identify as non-binary and that these youth report more internalizing problems as well as different transition-related medical treatment wishes than binary adolescents. However, the results are inconclusive, and data for the German-speaking area are lacking. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the percentage of binary and non-binary gender identities in a German sample of clinically referred TGNC adolescents and examine associations of gender identity with internalizing problems and transition-related medical treatment wishes. The sample consisted of 369 adolescents (11–18 years, Mage = 15.43; 305 birth-assigned female, 64 birth-assigned male) who attended the Hamburg Gender Identity Service for children and adolescents (Hamburg GIS) between 2013 and 2019. Gender identity and treatment wishes were assessed using study-specific items and internalizing problems using the Youth Self-Report. In total, 90% (n = 332) of the sample identified as binary and 10% (n = 37) as non-binary. Having a non-binary gender identity was significantly associated with more internalizing problems and with wishing for no transition-related medical treatment or only puberty-suppressing hormones. The results underscore that non-binary adolescents represent a specifically vulnerable subgroup within TGNC adolescents with unique mental health needs and treatment wishes. Future research should differentiate among various gender identities. In clinical practice, it is crucial to create an inclusive space for non-binary youth and provide mental health care if needed.

BackgroundTrans and non-binary people are often discriminated against. Discrimination has a negative impact on health and may affect sexual health and behavior. We explored the relationship between discrimination based on gender identity and the perceived ability to make decisions about their sex life to feel as protected as desired from HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STI) among trans and non-binary people in Germany. Secondarily, we assessed whether feeling unable of making HIV/STI-protected sex decisions was associated with behaviors related to increased HIV/STI risk.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the Sexual Health and HIV/STI in Trans and Non-Binary Communities (TASG) survey conducted online between March-July 2022 among trans and/or non-binary people aged 18 years and older living in Germany. We described the prevalence of frequent discrimination based on gender identity. We calculated prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the associations between frequent experienced discrimination based on gender identity and feeling unable of making HIV/STI-protected sex decisions, and between feeling unable of making HIV/STI-protected sex decisions and behaviors related to increased HIV/STI risk.ResultsAmong 3077 participants, 22% reported frequent discrimination based on gender identity. Participants experiencing such discrimination reported 1.4 times more often to feel unable to make HIV/STI-protected sex decisions (PR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.8). This perceived inability was associated with increased prevalence of sex under drug influence (PR 2.9, 95% CI 2.3–3.7) and condomless penetrative sex with multiple partners without PrEP (PR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4–2.9).ConclusionFeeling unable to make decisions to feel protected from HIV/STI among trans and non-binary people was associated with both frequent discrimination and behaviors that increase the HIV/STI risk. Strategies for empowering trans and non-binary people to assert their sexual decision-making needs should be explored.

Background Endometriosis is a chronic, debilitating and isolative disease that has a negative effect on people’s quality of life. Little is known about the lived experience of psychosocial support for transgender and non-binary people with endometriosis. Aim The aim of this study was to explore the lived experience of psychosocial support, or the lack thereof, for eleven transgender and non-binary people with endometriosis. Methods We used Hermeneutic Analysis to analyze the data, from our sample of 11 participants, that we collected through three online interviews and one diary per participant. We used Phenomenology of Medicine as our theoretical point of departure. Results We shared our findings under three themes of psychosocial support: (1) rejection of gender identity: left to manage endometriosis alone, (2) an isolating and alienating disease, and (3) The significance of support with gender identity and endometriosis. Participants described endometriosis as a lonely disease. Many of the participants reported feeling alone and isolated as transgender and non-binary individuals living with endometriosis. The few who reported receiving support, shared how these support structures aided them with their endometriosis and managing adversity and rejection regarding their gender identity. Discussion We describe from our participants’ experiences how transgender and non-binary people with endometriosis may experience a layering of isolation due to experiences of rejection of their gender identity and needing to navigate an isolative disease. We recommend that transgender and non-binary people with endometriosis have their psychosocial needs assessed as part of their treatment as they may benefit from additional psychosocial supports that are gender inclusive.

Empirical investigations use empirical methods, data, and evidence. This banal observation appears to favour empiricism, especially in philosophy of science, though no rationalist ever denied their importance. Natural sciences often provide what appear to be, and are taken by scientists as, realist, causal explanations of natural phenomena, often in terms of forces or entities we do not perceive with our normal, unaided human senses. Empiricism has never been congenial to realism about such scientific posits. Bas van Fraassen’s “Constructive Empiricism” purports that realist interpretations of any “unobservables” mentioned by a scientific theory in principle always transcend whatever can be justified by that theory’s empirical adequacy, and that “explanations” are merely pragmatic, insofar as they are context‑specific to the presuppositions of whomever poses the question an explanation is to answer. Here I argue that “Constructive Empiricism” rests upon a series of flawed presumptions about natural science and about epistemology. I draw upon two main resources. One resource is the constraints upon specifically c ognitive reference to particulars, first identified by Kant (and later by Evans). The second is William Harper’s (2011) brilliant re‑analysis and defense of Newton’s Prin c ipia , which shows that, and how, Newton justified his realism about gravitational force. One surprise is that Kant’s semantics of singular cognitive reference (examined in §3) directly and strongly supports Newton’s Rule 4 of scientific method (§4), which strongly supports his realism about gravi‑ tational force (summarized in §2). A further surprise is that Hegel first recognized that this semantics of singular cognitive reference directly and strongly supports Newton’s meth odological Rule 4 of experimental philosophy in ways which support Newton’s realism about gravitational force, and about distance forces generally. The textual and exegetical issues these attributions require I examine elsewhere. Here I make these important findings available to philosophers and historians of science. (*) Invited paper

The LGBT phenomenon is not a novel thing nowadays. Many controversies have arisen in response to whether it can be accepted or not. Some countries, especially Islamic countries including Indonesia insists that this is unacceptable because it violates the Islamic laws as stated in Quran and Hadith. Other countries, especially the western countries considered this to be normal and tolerable. The concern on this issue has also encouraged the actors in the movie industries to create some work representing how this phenomenon occurs. One of which is found in Chloe movie. This gender-related study aimed at analyzing how the gender identity, sexual orientation and gender fluidity were portrayed in the movie. It included how the main character perceive her gender identity and sexual orientation, why the gender fluidity existed and what reasons were underlying such behaviors. The analysis on the movie was carried out by using lesbian/ gay criticism. The result of the study shows that gender is a fluid entity. Admitting to belong to a particular gender identity requires someone to perform some roles which are agreed by the society. However, one’s gender identity does not always represent his or her sexual orientation. Some people even change their sexual orientation or gender fluidity. The movie reveals that heterosexual deprivation causes the gender fluidity. Lack of intimacy between husbands and wives may influence each of them to get the intimacy from people of the same gender. Last but not least, communication between husbands and wives plays a vital role to maintain the sexual relations that indirectly maintains the straightness of the gender identity and sexual orientation.

Remembering medical English terms is the difficult point in learning medical English.Only through learning the rules and characteristics of medical terms can one remember and get command of thousands of medical terms rapidly and effectively.When studying medical English terms,we explored and summarized a series of pithy formula hook memorial method - a pithy formula linked to the affix and etyma was turned into rhyming verse and formed a memory chain after memorizing by hook memory method many times so as to keep the medical terms firmly in the mind rapidly. Key words: Medical English terms; Pithy formula; Hook memory method

Currently, people with non-binary gender identities – those who identify as either both genders or neither - are gaining more social visibility, suggesting that changes in social understandings of gender are now underway. Facebook, for example, has recently introduced a range of non-binary gender options for user profile pages; indeterminate and ‘third gender’ identities are now legally recognised in a number of countries, including Australia, Germany, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, New Zealand and Thailand; and the term ‘cisgender’, which refers to those whose self identity matches the gender and biological sex assigned to them at birth, has now entered the Oxford English Dictionary. Typical spaces where personal narratives concerning non-binary gender identities are generated and shared are Internet blogs and online discussion forums. However, as yet these narratives have not been explored and non-binary gender identities remain largely under researched within the social sciences. This paper begins to address this gap through the presentation of some initial research findings from a qualitative study of online non-binary gender identity narratives. It explores some key themes within and across the narratives of younger and older generation non-binary people produced within a sample of blogs and forums, and draws out their implications for the development of further research.

As increasing numbers of transgender, gender diverse, and queer youths come out to their friends, families and communities, their rights to express their identities in public life have become the subject of intense media scrutiny and political debate. But for all the attention transgender, gender diverse, and queer youth have received from politicians, journalists, and public intellectuals, basic science research on how these youth actually experience their identities over time remains scarce. In this monograph, we contribute to the emerging knowledge base on this topic by presenting a detailed quantitative description of gender identity and sexual orientation in a sample of over 900 North American transgender, gender diverse, and cisgender youths in the Trans Youth Project (Mage = 8.1 years at first visit; Mage = 14.3 at latest visit; 99% living in the United States, 1% in Canada; 69% non-Hispanic white; 73% household income >$75,000). Youths are in one of three groups: (1) a group of early identifying transgender youths, who were supported by their parents in a social gender transition (changing their name, pronouns, hairstyle, and clothing) by age 12 (Mage at transition = 6.5; N = 317); (2) a group of their siblings, who were cisgender at the beginning of their participation in the study (N = 218); and (3) a group of cisgender youths who were age- and gender-matched to, but not family members of, the early identifying transgender youths (N = 377). Data on the youths' identities have been collected from the youths themselves and their parents between 2013 and 2024. We had two primary research goals. First, we described stability or change in youths' gender identity (Chapter 4) and sexual orientation (Chapter 6). We asked whether transgender youths' rates of change were or were not different from those of cisgender youths. Second, we examined whether measures of gender development earlier in development were related to youths' later gender identity (Chapter 5) or sexual orientation (Chapter 6) trajectories into adolescence. Stability in gender identity was by far the most common pathway for youths in all three groups, with over 80% of youths showing stability throughout their participation in the study. We saw similarity between the three groups of youths, such that the early identifying transgender youths were no more or less likely to show gender change than their siblings or youths in the unrelated comparison sample. Nevertheless, 11.9% of youths who started as cisgender were not so at their most recent report-a much higher proportion than would be predicted based on assumptions held in classic developmental psychology research about gender since the 1950s. When gender change did occur in all three groups, it overwhelmingly involved change to (and, to a lesser extent, from) a nonbinary gender identity. Results were similar regardless of whether youth- or parent-report data were considered, and we found no evidence that youths were more or less likely to change at particular ages. We observed some evidence that more gender nonconformity in childhood (e.g., more femininity in childhood among children living as boys) was related to later gender change, but results were somewhat inconsistent across measures and gender identities. Youths showed diverse sexual orientations, with 60% of binary transgender and 33% of cisgender adolescents expressing queer (i.e., not straight) romantic or sexual interest. A high percentage of youths overall (37%) indicated interest in both boys and girls-a pattern particularly common among nonbinary youths. Finally, more than a third of youths have shown change in their sexual orientation, and childhood gender nonconformity was associated with whether currently binary transgender or cisgender teenagers most recently reported a queer identity. Our results accord with recent evidence indicating that today's youth are defying assumptions about gender and sexual orientationfrom decades of developmental research, considering gender and sexual orientation to be relatively flexible social identitiesrather than ones that are fixed, and view gender as having more than two categories. Early identifying transgender children's sense of their own gender was no more or less stable than cisgender children's, suggesting that children who are supported in their transgender identities tend to show developmental patterns that mirror their cisgender peers. Finally, in Chapter 7, we discuss how our findings exemplify and respond to this unique historical moment, the ways in which our findings do and do not align with past work about gender- nonconforming children, and how future research can continue to make strides toward better understanding a wider swath of gender development trajectories.

Improving Research Methodology in Adolescent Sexual Health Research

In the 19th scientific world was almost dominated by natural science. This condition influenced the separation between natural and non-natural sciences. The questions which were derivated from the separation: 1. are any differences in quality between the two separation of science? 2. how did the humanities function to intergrate of scientific activity? To answer those questions this paper attempt to invertigate the brief development of them, especially in Indonesia

This research project explored the narratives of people who identify as having a non-binary gender identity. This is an important study, filling a gap in current psychology and health literature, because it expands the conversation on transgender and transsexual populations to include people who identify their gender outside of the binary of female and male. Eight people participated in open-ended interviews telling the story of their gender identity. The collaborative narrative method was used in this research, chosen specifically because of its focus on keeping participant voices intact. This in-depth method involved unstructured interviews and collaborative thematic readings of interview transcripts by participants and researchers to identify common experiences shared by people belonging to this population. Some of the major themes explored are threats to welfare, compulsory conformity, the body including gender affirming procedures (surgery/hormones), gender performance, coming out as trans/genderqueer/non-binary, community support and intersectional analysis.

Introduction The term “scientist” lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the evolving, interdisciplinary nature of scientific work and posing challenges for recognition, communication, and policy. This study aims to develop consensus-based definitions of the term “scientist” by engaging experienced scholars across diverse fields. Methods This study involved 156 scholars, each with at least 1,000 citations, recruited via convenience sampling. Fourteen scientist definitions, derived from literature and expert input, were assessed using a nine-point Likert scale via a structured google forms survey. The sample size was calculated using G*power (effect size = 0.5, power = 0.95), requiring at least 80 participants. Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for analysis. Definitions scoring ≥0.78 were accepted and included for final analysis, 0.70–0.78 were revised and re-evaluated, and <0.70 were excluded. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality. Results Of the 14 proposed definitions, six (42.9%) were excluded (CVI < 0.70), seven (50.0%) were accepted (CVI > 0.78), and one (7.1%) underwent revision (CVI 0.70–0.78). The highest-rated definitions were refined into two consensus-based versions: a short definition (“A scientist is a person who conducts research”) and a detailed one emphasizing hypothesis formulation and knowledge dissemination. Final validation yielded CVIs of 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, confirming strong expert agreement on both definitions. Conclusion This study developed two validated definitions of “scientist” emphasizing systematic research and knowledge dissemination. These definitions clarify the concept of scientific identity, providing a flexible yet rigorous framework applicable across academic, interdisciplinary, and policy-making contexts. Introduction The term "scientist" has undergone significant transformation since its inception, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the evolving landscape of knowledge. This lack of clarity stems from the diverse roles and contributions of individuals in scientific fields, the evolving nature of research, and the interdisciplinary scope of modern science. Historically, figures such as Galileo and Newton were regarded as natural philosophers, a reflection of an earlier framework for knowledge production that has evolved alongside modern scientific advancements. Before twentieth century, the term "scientist" was commonly referred to as a "man of science," "natural philosopher," or by various other designations [1,2]. In contemporary contexts, scientists operate across a broad spectrum of fields, including medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences, each employing methodologies tailored to their specific inquiries. For instance, biologists may design experiments to test hypotheses about living organisms, while social scientists might use qualitative methods to explore human behavior [3]. The Science Council defines a scientist as an individual who methodically collects and applies research and evidence to develop hypotheses, performs experiments, and shares results to advance knowledge in their field [4]. While National Cancer Institute defines a scientist as an individual with a background in science, particularly someone actively engaged in a specific area of research [5]. This diversity in practices underscores the challenge of defining "scientist" in a way that captures the breadth of their contributions. The plurality of definitions extends to global organizations and frameworks. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization highlights the critical role of scientists in addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. This definition broadens the scope to include individuals working in multidisciplinary teams or applying scientific knowledge to public policy and societal issues. Similarly, some academic discussions focus on the characteristics of a scientist, such as curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions, rather than formal qualifications or job titles [6]. Unlike well-defined professions such as medicine or engineering, where specific educational pathways and professional titles (e.g., "doctor" or "engineer") confer clear identities, the term "scientist" lacks a universally recognized credentialing system. This absence can lead to underrepresentation or misrepresentation of scientific expertise, especially in interdisciplinary and collaborative contexts [7]. For example, the growing integration of data science in biology or physics illustrates the importance of understanding who qualifies as a scientist to ensure effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The absence of a standardized definition poses practical challenges for scientific communication, policymaking, and inclusivity. This study aims to address this gap by engaging scholars across disciplines to develop a consensus-based definition of "scientist." By recognizing the diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of scientists, such a definition could enhance collaboration, improve public understanding, and inform policies that support the scientific community. Methods Study design and participants A total of 156 scholars (out of 300 invited) participated in this study. Eligibility was determined based on the scholars' substantial academic expertise, evidenced by the achievement of at least 1,000 citations within their respective fields. This criterion ensured that participants had significant research experience and were highly qualified to contribute to the formulation of a consensus-based definition of "scientist." Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method, and data were collected via a structured survey administered through google forms. While convenience sampling was used due to the accessibility of high-citation scholars, efforts were made to ensure disciplinary diversity to mitigate potential bias. Personalized invitations were sent via email to each scholar to facilitate their inclusion in the study. Sample size determination The sample size was determined using G*power statistical software (version 3.1.9.7), employing a two-tailed goodness of fit test with an effect size of 0.5, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95. According to the calculations, a minimum of 80 participants were required to achieve statistically valid results. Consequently, 156 scholars were recruited to participate in the study, ensuring robust representation and adequate statistical power. Data collection Fourteen proposed definitions of "scientist," curated from existing literature and expert contributions, were presented to the enrolled scholars for evaluation (Table 1). Each definition included a Likert scale with nine response options, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Responses were systematically recorded and compiled in an Excel sheet for subsequent analysis. This process facilitated the systematic capture of scholarly consensus on each definition. Table 1. Respondent Agreement on Various 'Scientist' Definitions. Proposed Definitions Options A person studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences. (Oxford Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert who studies or works in one of the sciences. (Cambridge Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person learned in science and especially natural science. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. (Science Council) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science. (Collins Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences. (Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person with some kind of knowledge or expertise in any of the sciences. (Vocabulary dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems. (Britannica Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation. (National Cancer Institute) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone who works or is trained in science. (Longman Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences. (Your Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science. (Free Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone whose job or education is about science. (LanGeek Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. (Wikipedia) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Data analysis The Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed to assess the relevance and agreement of the definitions. Definitions with a CVI below 0.70 were excluded, as they failed to meet the minimum threshold for consensus. Definitions with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 underwent a second round of evaluation, with refined wording sent back to the same scholars for further review. Definitions achieving a CVI above 0.78 were deemed sufficiently valid for inclusion in the final analysis [8]. These definitions formed the foundation for the development of a unified, consensus-based definition of "scientist." Ethical considerations Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all responses were anonymized to preserve participant confidentiality. Results Initially, out of the 14 proposed definitions of the term "scientist," six (42.9%) received a CVI score below the threshold of 0.70 and were consequently excluded from further consideration. In contrast, seven definitions (50.0%) demonstrated strong content validity with CVI scores equal to or exceeding 0.78 and were therefore retained for subsequent synthesis and analysis. Only one definition (7.1%) fell within the intermediate range, with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Agreement and CVI Across Proposed Definitions of 'Scientist'. Proposed Definition Agree Disagree Undecided CVI Status Science Council Definition 146 8 2 0.94 Accepted Britannica Dictionary Definition 136 16 4 0.87 Accepted Cambridge Dictionary 130 20 6 0.83 Accepted Wikipedia Definition 125 27 4 0.80 Accepted Free Dictionary Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted National Cancer Institute Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted Collins Dictionary Definition 122 31 3 0.78 Accepted Oxford Dictionary Definition 120 31 5 0.77 Revised Longman Dictionary Definition 104 42 10 0.67 Excluded Your Dictionary Definition 103 48 5 0.66 Excluded Dictionary (generic) Definition 91 52 13 0.58 Excluded Vocabulary dictionary Definition 88 58 10 0.56 Excluded Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition 81 64 11 0.52 Excluded LanGeek Dictionary Definition 79 67 10 0.51 Excluded CVI: Content Validity Index, CVI Thresholds: Accepted: ≥ 0.78, Revised: 0.70–0.78, Excluded: < 0.70 Through a rigorous, iterative evaluation process involving expert feedback, the definitions with the highest CVI scores (those above 0.78) were integrated and refined into two distinct, consensus-based definitions of the term "scientist." The first was a concise definition: “A scientist is a person who conducts research.” The second was a more comprehensive and elaborated definition: “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These two final definitions were subsequently circulated among the panel of scholars for a second round of evaluation, during which they were asked to rate the definitions for content validity. The short definition received a CVI of 0.82, while the more detailed definition attained a slightly higher CVI of 0.84, reflecting strong agreement among the experts. Although no additional formal qualitative feedback was solicited at this stage; minor wording adjustments were made based on informal suggestions received during this validation round. Discussion The role of a scientist extends far beyond the stereotypical image of an individual in a white coat working exclusively in a laboratory setting. Careers grounded in scientific expertise are remarkably diverse, encompassing domains such as research, education, industry, and regulatory affairs. The Science Council categorizes scientists into 10 different types, highlighting the diversity of scientific roles beyond the stereotypical lab-based researcher. It includes types such as experimental scientists, theoretical scientists, data scientists, and more, reflecting the broad spectrum of scientific work today [9]. Definitions of the term “scientist” vary, yet they generally converge on the principles of systematic inquiry, evidence-based investigation, and the pursuit of knowledge across various disciplines. For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary emphasize formal training and research functions, typically within the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, or physics [10,11]. In contrast, contemporary perspectives, such as those discussed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2024, recognize a broader spectrum of scientific engagement, encompassing both professional researchers and individuals committed to understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and analysis [12]. In light of this diversity, the present study aimed to clarify and formalize the definition of a "scientist" through expert consensus. Two definitions were developed: a concise definition “A scientist is a person who conducts research”, and a comprehensive definition “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These definitions encapsulate the core activities and guiding principles of scientific inquiry, emphasizing both methodological rigor and the essential role of knowledge dissemination across disciplines. A key finding of this study lies in its recognition of the evolving tension between disciplinary specialization and the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. As highlighted in contemporary analyses of interdisciplinary research and development, scientists now frequently operate at the intersection of multiple fields, such as nanomedicine, where the diversity and dissimilarity of collaborators’ knowledge can significantly enhance research productivity [13]. The concise definition, "A scientist is a person who conducts research" captures this shift by avoiding constraints tied to specific disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the more detailed definition explicitly incorporates the systematic formulation and testing of hypotheses, along with the dissemination of knowledge, thereby reinforcing the structured and communicative nature of scientific inquiry. These elements align closely with UNESCO’s 2019 call for stronger science-society engagement and underscore the ethical responsibilities inherent in modern scientific practice [14]. The study’s findings also contribute to ongoing debates surrounding professional identity within the scientific community. In contrast to regulated professions such as medicine, the absence of a universal credentialing system for scientists complicates formal recognition, particularly in non-academic and interdisciplinary contexts. This ambiguity is reflected in the National Cancer Institute’s pragmatic definition of a scientist, which emphasizes active participation in research rather than reliance on formal titles or qualifications [15]. By anchoring the term “scientist” in core research activities rather than occupational labels, the consensus-based definitions proposed in this study offer a more inclusive framework. This approach accommodates emerging roles in fields such as data science and applied research, thereby addressing the risk of under recognition in collaborative and cross-sector environments. The dual definitions, concise and comprehensive, offer flexibility for different contexts, a strategy aligned with the Science Council’s emphasis on methodological diversity [4]. The detailed definition’s focus on systematic inquiry and dissemination aligns with studies of interdisciplinary science, where “impassioned commitment” to shared goals drives innovation [13]. Simultaneously, the availability of a concise definition enhances clarity in public discourse and science communication, while the more detailed version provides the specificity necessary for institutional contexts such as policy development, research funding, and professional accreditation. Notably, the study’s findings also challenge enduring stereotypes of the “lone genius” scientist by highlighting the inherently collaborative and iterative nature of scientific practice. Contemporary frameworks, such as those emerging from computational biology, suggest that scientific identity is increasingly dynamic, pluralistic, and shaped by collective knowledge production [16]. The process undertaken in this study, involving successive refinement and expert validation of definitions, closely mirrors the recursive logic of the scientific method itself. This methodological alignment is particularly salient in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the replication of findings remains a persistent challenge and iterative inquiry is essential for refining evidence [17]. Despite the methodological rigor and expert involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed convenience sampling, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Although participants were selected based on a minimum citation threshold to ensure scholarly expertise, this criterion may have inadvertently excluded emerging researchers or experts with significant practical contributions who have not yet achieved high citation metrics. Second, the use of an online survey format may have constrained participant engagement, as scholars with limited availability or preference for alternative formats may have been underrepresented. Additionally, response bias cannot be ruled out, as those with a particular interest in the topic or in defining scientific identity may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the results. Future refinements of the definition should also consider voices from non-academic scientific contexts including those in industry, policy, and community-based science who are increasingly central to addressing complex global challenges. Conclusion By engaging experienced scholars across disciplines, this study establishes two validated definitions of “scientist” that emphasize systematic research activity and knowledge dissemination. These definitions offer a structured yet adaptable framework for understanding scientific identity, balancing clarity with flexibility. They help address the ambiguity surrounding the term “scientist,” providing a foundation for improved communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-informed policy development. Importantly, they remain open to future refinement as scientific practice continues to evolve. Declarations Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Patient consent (participation and publication): Not applicable. Funding: The present study received no financial support. Acknowledgements: None to be declared. Authors' contributions: JG, MM, SB, BS, VS, ASN, SHM, HAH, AGH, ADS, RAK, WRR, AB, GB, SS, SN, CJ, PL, MSS, ZK, MC, AM, SK, FCT, FB, FRK, MAM, AA, VK, DH, PM, VRM, MSA, EA, and RV were significant contributors to the conception of the study, voting for the items. FHK, BAA, and AMM were involved in the literature review, manuscript writing, and data analysis and interpretation. FHK and AMM Confirmation of the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Use of AI: ChatGPT-3.5 was used to assist in language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the entire content of their manuscript. Data availability statement: Not applicable.

The absence of a father figure has long been a subject of psychological and sociological inquiry, particularly regarding its impact on gender identity formation. In this comprehensive analysis, Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, delves into the intricate ways in which fatherless homes influence the evolution of gender identity. Exploring historical, philosophical, and contemporary perspectives, this book seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms that shape identity in the absence of paternal guidance. Drawing from extensive research and cross-cultural studies, it provides a balanced discourse on how gender roles and self-perception are constructed within a fatherless environment. The foundation of this book is built upon the growing body of research that links father absence to gender identity development. Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, investigates the critical role fathers play in shaping their children's understanding of masculinity, femininity, and gender fluidity. Published in New York, USA, in 2023, this book aims to provide scholars, educators, and psychologists with an in-depth examination of the implications of growing up without a father figure. The fundamental concepts in this book revolve around identity formation, gender constructs, and psychological development. Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, explores theories from psychoanalysis, cognitive development, and social learning to define the key components of gender identity in fatherless homes. The interplay between nature and nurture, societal expectations, and individual agency is discussed to provide a well-rounded perspective. The prevalence of single-parent households has risen in recent decades, prompting further investigation into its impact on gender identity. Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, presents compelling evidence from multiple cultural backgrounds to analyze whether fatherless homes contribute to deviations from traditional gender norms. The book examines real-life case studies to understand how individuals navigate gender roles without paternal influence. To explore this issue, the book adopts a multidisciplinary approach, integrating insights from psychology, philosophy, and anthropology. By analyzing empirical data and theoretical frameworks, Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, articulates a structured methodology to understand the complexities of gender identity formation in fatherless settings. This book identifies key indicators such as emotional well-being, self-concept, socialization patterns, and resilience in fatherless individuals. By dissecting these elements, Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, provides valuable insights into how father absence affects different aspects of gender identity development. To operationalize the theories discussed, Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, introduces various models that explain the role of paternal absence in identity formation. These include behavioral analyses, cognitive assessments, and longitudinal studies that track gender identity development over time. The book also explores the major determinants influencing gender identity in fatherless homes. Socioeconomic status, cultural background, maternal influence, and peer interactions are examined to determine their respective impacts. Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, highlights the intricate interplay of these factors in shaping an individual's perception of gender. Practical applications and strategies are provided to support individuals growing up in fatherless households. Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, suggests educational interventions, mentorship programs, and community support mechanisms that can mitigate potential challenges associated with father absence. Despite the insights offered, the book acknowledges the obstacles in fully comprehending gender identity development without paternal presence. Challenges such as limited longitudinal studies, cultural biases, and evolving societal norms are discussed. Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, outlines recommendations for future research and policy development. In conclusion, this book synthesizes extensive research to highlight the profound impact of father absence on gender identity. Prof. Dr. Yoesoep Edhie Rachmad, Ph.D., DBA, provides a compelling argument for the necessity of paternal involvement in identity formation while also advocating for alternative support structures for individuals growing up in fatherless homes.