Transgender Health

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adolescents and young adults who undergo “top surgery” for gender dysphoria overwhelmingly report being satisfied with the procedure in the near-term, new research shows.

The results of the prospective cohort study, reported recently in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that the surgery can help facilitate gender congruence and comfort with body image for transmasculine and nonbinary youth. The authors, from Northwestern University, Chicago, said the findings may “help dispel misconceptions that gender-affirming treatment is experimental and support evidence-based practices of top surgery.”

Sumanas Jordan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of plastic surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, and a coauthor of the study, said the study was the first prospective, matched cohort analysis showing that chest surgery improves outcomes in this age group.

“We focused our study on chest dysphoria, the distress due to the presence of breasts, and gender congruence, the feeling of alignment between identity and physical characteristics,” Dr. Jordan said. “We will continue to study the effect of surgery in other areas of health, such as physical functioning and quality of life, and follow our patients longer term.”

As many as 9% of adolescents and young adults identify as transgender or nonbinary - a group underrepresented in the pediatric literature, Dr. Jordan’s group said. Chest dysphoria often is associated with psychosocial issues such as depression and anxiety.

“Dysphoria can lead to a range of negative physical and emotional consequences, such as avoidance of exercise and sports, harmful chest-binding practices, functional limitations, and suicidal ideation, said M. Brett Cooper, MD, MEd, assistant professor of pediatrics, and adolescent and young adult medicine, at UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s Health, Dallas. “These young people often bind for several hours a day to reduce the presence of their chest.”

The study

The Northwestern team recruited 81 patients with a mean age of 18.6 years whose sex at birth was assigned female. Patients were overwhelmingly White (89%), and the majority (59%) were transgender male, the remaining patients nonbinary.

The population sample included patients aged 13-24 who underwent top surgery from December 2019 to April 2021 and a matched control group of those who did not have surgery.

Outcomes measures were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

Thirty-six surgical patients and 34 of those in the control arm completed the outcomes measures. Surgical complications were minimal. Propensity analyses suggested an association between surgery and substantial improvements in scores on the following study endpoints:

• Chest dysphoria measure (–25.58 points, 95% confidence interval [CI], –29.18 to –21.98).
• Transgender congruence scale (7.78 points, 95%: CI, 6.06-9.50)
• Body image scale (–7.20 points, 95% CI, –11.68 to –2.72).

The patients who underwent top surgery reported significant improvements in scores of chest dysphoria, transgender congruence, and body image. The results for patients younger than age 18 paralleled those for older participants in the study.

While the results corroborate other studies showing that gender-affirming therapy improves mental health and quality of life among these young people, the researchers cautioned that some insurers require testosterone therapy for 1 year before their plans will cover the costs of gender-affirming surgery.

This may negatively affect those nonbinary patients who do not undergo hormone therapy,” the researchers wrote. They are currently collecting 1-year follow-up data to determine the long-term effects of top surgery on chest dysphoria, gender congruence, and body image.

As surgical patients progress through adult life, does the risk of regret increase? “We did not address regret in this short-term study,” Dr. Jordan said. “However, previous studies have shown very low levels of regret.”

An accompanying editorial concurred that top surgery is effective and medically necessary in this population of young people.

Calling the study “an important milestone in gender affirmation research,” Kishan M. Thadikonda, MD, and Katherine M. Gast, MD, MS, of the school of medicine and public health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it will be important to follow this young cohort to prove these benefits will endure as patients age.

They cautioned, however, that nonbinary patients represented just 13% of the patient total and only 8% of the surgical cohort. Nonbinary patients are not well understood as a patient population when it comes to gender-affirmation surgery and are often included in studies with transgender patients despite clear differences, they noted.
 

Current setbacks

According to Dr. Cooper, politics is already affecting care in Texas. “Due to the sociopolitical climate in my state in regard to gender-affirming care, I have also seen a few young people have their surgeries either canceled or postponed by their parents,” he said. “This has led to a worsening of mental health in these patients.”

Dr. Cooper stressed the need for more research on the perspective of non-White and socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.

“This study also highlights the disparity between patients who have commercial insurance versus those who are on Medicaid,” he said. “Medicaid plans often do not cover this, so those patients usually have to continue to suffer or pay for this surgery out of their own pocket.”

This study was supported by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Funding also came from the Plastic Surgery Foundation and American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgery. Dr. Jordan received grants from the Plastic Surgery Foundation during the study. One coauthor reported consultant fees from CVS Caremark for consulting outside the submitted work, and another reported grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Cooper disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments. The editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Adolescents and young adults who undergo “top surgery” for gender dysphoria overwhelmingly report being satisfied with the procedure in the near-term, new research shows.

The results of the prospective cohort study, reported recently in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that the surgery can help facilitate gender congruence and comfort with body image for transmasculine and nonbinary youth. The authors, from Northwestern University, Chicago, said the findings may “help dispel misconceptions that gender-affirming treatment is experimental and support evidence-based practices of top surgery.”

Sumanas Jordan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of plastic surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, and a coauthor of the study, said the study was the first prospective, matched cohort analysis showing that chest surgery improves outcomes in this age group.

“We focused our study on chest dysphoria, the distress due to the presence of breasts, and gender congruence, the feeling of alignment between identity and physical characteristics,” Dr. Jordan said. “We will continue to study the effect of surgery in other areas of health, such as physical functioning and quality of life, and follow our patients longer term.”

As many as 9% of adolescents and young adults identify as transgender or nonbinary - a group underrepresented in the pediatric literature, Dr. Jordan’s group said. Chest dysphoria often is associated with psychosocial issues such as depression and anxiety.

“Dysphoria can lead to a range of negative physical and emotional consequences, such as avoidance of exercise and sports, harmful chest-binding practices, functional limitations, and suicidal ideation, said M. Brett Cooper, MD, MEd, assistant professor of pediatrics, and adolescent and young adult medicine, at UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s Health, Dallas. “These young people often bind for several hours a day to reduce the presence of their chest.”

The study

The Northwestern team recruited 81 patients with a mean age of 18.6 years whose sex at birth was assigned female. Patients were overwhelmingly White (89%), and the majority (59%) were transgender male, the remaining patients nonbinary.

The population sample included patients aged 13-24 who underwent top surgery from December 2019 to April 2021 and a matched control group of those who did not have surgery.

Outcomes measures were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

Thirty-six surgical patients and 34 of those in the control arm completed the outcomes measures. Surgical complications were minimal. Propensity analyses suggested an association between surgery and substantial improvements in scores on the following study endpoints:

• Chest dysphoria measure (–25.58 points, 95% confidence interval [CI], –29.18 to –21.98).
• Transgender congruence scale (7.78 points, 95%: CI, 6.06-9.50)
• Body image scale (–7.20 points, 95% CI, –11.68 to –2.72).

The patients who underwent top surgery reported significant improvements in scores of chest dysphoria, transgender congruence, and body image. The results for patients younger than age 18 paralleled those for older participants in the study.

While the results corroborate other studies showing that gender-affirming therapy improves mental health and quality of life among these young people, the researchers cautioned that some insurers require testosterone therapy for 1 year before their plans will cover the costs of gender-affirming surgery.

This may negatively affect those nonbinary patients who do not undergo hormone therapy,” the researchers wrote. They are currently collecting 1-year follow-up data to determine the long-term effects of top surgery on chest dysphoria, gender congruence, and body image.

As surgical patients progress through adult life, does the risk of regret increase? “We did not address regret in this short-term study,” Dr. Jordan said. “However, previous studies have shown very low levels of regret.”

An accompanying editorial concurred that top surgery is effective and medically necessary in this population of young people.

Calling the study “an important milestone in gender affirmation research,” Kishan M. Thadikonda, MD, and Katherine M. Gast, MD, MS, of the school of medicine and public health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it will be important to follow this young cohort to prove these benefits will endure as patients age.

They cautioned, however, that nonbinary patients represented just 13% of the patient total and only 8% of the surgical cohort. Nonbinary patients are not well understood as a patient population when it comes to gender-affirmation surgery and are often included in studies with transgender patients despite clear differences, they noted.
 

Current setbacks

According to Dr. Cooper, politics is already affecting care in Texas. “Due to the sociopolitical climate in my state in regard to gender-affirming care, I have also seen a few young people have their surgeries either canceled or postponed by their parents,” he said. “This has led to a worsening of mental health in these patients.”

Dr. Cooper stressed the need for more research on the perspective of non-White and socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.

“This study also highlights the disparity between patients who have commercial insurance versus those who are on Medicaid,” he said. “Medicaid plans often do not cover this, so those patients usually have to continue to suffer or pay for this surgery out of their own pocket.”

This study was supported by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Funding also came from the Plastic Surgery Foundation and American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgery. Dr. Jordan received grants from the Plastic Surgery Foundation during the study. One coauthor reported consultant fees from CVS Caremark for consulting outside the submitted work, and another reported grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Cooper disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments. The editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Adolescents and young adults who undergo “top surgery” for gender dysphoria overwhelmingly report being satisfied with the procedure in the near-term, new research shows.

The results of the prospective cohort study, reported recently in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that the surgery can help facilitate gender congruence and comfort with body image for transmasculine and nonbinary youth. The authors, from Northwestern University, Chicago, said the findings may “help dispel misconceptions that gender-affirming treatment is experimental and support evidence-based practices of top surgery.”

Sumanas Jordan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of plastic surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago, and a coauthor of the study, said the study was the first prospective, matched cohort analysis showing that chest surgery improves outcomes in this age group.

“We focused our study on chest dysphoria, the distress due to the presence of breasts, and gender congruence, the feeling of alignment between identity and physical characteristics,” Dr. Jordan said. “We will continue to study the effect of surgery in other areas of health, such as physical functioning and quality of life, and follow our patients longer term.”

As many as 9% of adolescents and young adults identify as transgender or nonbinary - a group underrepresented in the pediatric literature, Dr. Jordan’s group said. Chest dysphoria often is associated with psychosocial issues such as depression and anxiety.

“Dysphoria can lead to a range of negative physical and emotional consequences, such as avoidance of exercise and sports, harmful chest-binding practices, functional limitations, and suicidal ideation, said M. Brett Cooper, MD, MEd, assistant professor of pediatrics, and adolescent and young adult medicine, at UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s Health, Dallas. “These young people often bind for several hours a day to reduce the presence of their chest.”

The study

The Northwestern team recruited 81 patients with a mean age of 18.6 years whose sex at birth was assigned female. Patients were overwhelmingly White (89%), and the majority (59%) were transgender male, the remaining patients nonbinary.

The population sample included patients aged 13-24 who underwent top surgery from December 2019 to April 2021 and a matched control group of those who did not have surgery.

Outcomes measures were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

Thirty-six surgical patients and 34 of those in the control arm completed the outcomes measures. Surgical complications were minimal. Propensity analyses suggested an association between surgery and substantial improvements in scores on the following study endpoints:

• Chest dysphoria measure (–25.58 points, 95% confidence interval [CI], –29.18 to –21.98).
• Transgender congruence scale (7.78 points, 95%: CI, 6.06-9.50)
• Body image scale (–7.20 points, 95% CI, –11.68 to –2.72).

The patients who underwent top surgery reported significant improvements in scores of chest dysphoria, transgender congruence, and body image. The results for patients younger than age 18 paralleled those for older participants in the study.

While the results corroborate other studies showing that gender-affirming therapy improves mental health and quality of life among these young people, the researchers cautioned that some insurers require testosterone therapy for 1 year before their plans will cover the costs of gender-affirming surgery.

This may negatively affect those nonbinary patients who do not undergo hormone therapy,” the researchers wrote. They are currently collecting 1-year follow-up data to determine the long-term effects of top surgery on chest dysphoria, gender congruence, and body image.

As surgical patients progress through adult life, does the risk of regret increase? “We did not address regret in this short-term study,” Dr. Jordan said. “However, previous studies have shown very low levels of regret.”

An accompanying editorial concurred that top surgery is effective and medically necessary in this population of young people.

Calling the study “an important milestone in gender affirmation research,” Kishan M. Thadikonda, MD, and Katherine M. Gast, MD, MS, of the school of medicine and public health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said it will be important to follow this young cohort to prove these benefits will endure as patients age.

They cautioned, however, that nonbinary patients represented just 13% of the patient total and only 8% of the surgical cohort. Nonbinary patients are not well understood as a patient population when it comes to gender-affirmation surgery and are often included in studies with transgender patients despite clear differences, they noted.
 

Current setbacks

According to Dr. Cooper, politics is already affecting care in Texas. “Due to the sociopolitical climate in my state in regard to gender-affirming care, I have also seen a few young people have their surgeries either canceled or postponed by their parents,” he said. “This has led to a worsening of mental health in these patients.”

Dr. Cooper stressed the need for more research on the perspective of non-White and socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.

“This study also highlights the disparity between patients who have commercial insurance versus those who are on Medicaid,” he said. “Medicaid plans often do not cover this, so those patients usually have to continue to suffer or pay for this surgery out of their own pocket.”

This study was supported by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Funding also came from the Plastic Surgery Foundation and American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgery. Dr. Jordan received grants from the Plastic Surgery Foundation during the study. One coauthor reported consultant fees from CVS Caremark for consulting outside the submitted work, and another reported grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Cooper disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments. The editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2021, Tim Chevalier received the first of many coverage denials from his insurance company for the hair-removal procedure he needed as part of a phalloplasty, the creation of a penis.

Electrolysis is a common procedure among transgender people like Mr. Chevalier, a software developer in Oakland, Calif.. In some cases, it’s used to remove unwanted hair from the face or body. But it’s also required for a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina, because all hair must be removed from the tissue that will be relocated during surgery.

Mr. Chevalier’s insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, told him he needed what’s known as a prior authorization for the procedure. Even after Mr. Chevalier received the authorization, he said, his reimbursement claims kept getting denied. According to Mr. Chevalier, Anthem said the procedure was considered cosmetic.

Many trans patients have trouble getting their insurers to cover gender-affirming care. One reason is transphobia within the U.S. health care system, but another involves how medical diagnoses and procedures are coded for insurance companies. Nationwide, health care providers use a list of diagnostic codes provided by the ICD-10. And many of those, advocates for transgender people say, haven’t caught up to the needs of patients. Such diagnostic codes provide the basis for determining which procedures, such as electrolysis or surgery, insurance will cover.

“It’s widely regarded that the codes are very limited in ICD-10,” said Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

She advocates for a move to the 11th edition of the coding system, which was endorsed by the World Health Organization in 2019 and began to be adopted around the globe in February. Today, more than 34 countries use ICD-11.

The new edition has replaced outdated terms like “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder” with “gender incongruence,” which is no longer classified as a mental health condition, but as a sexual health one. This is crucial in reducing the stigmatization of trans people in health care, said Dr. Olson-Kennedy.

A move away from the mental health classification may also mean more coverage of gender-affirming care by insurance companies, which sometimes question mental health claims more rigorously than those for physical illnesses. WHO officials have said they hope that adding gender incongruence to a sexual health chapter will “help increase access to care for health interventions” and “destigmatize the condition,” according to the WHO website.

However, history suggests that ICD-11 likely won’t be implemented in the United States for years. The WHO first endorsed ICD-10 in 1990, but the United States didn’t implement it for 25 years.

Meanwhile, patients who identify as transgender and their doctors are spending hours trying to get coverage – or using crowdfunding to cover big out-of-pocket bills. Mr. Chevalier estimated he has received 78 hours of electrolysis at $140 per hour, costing $10,920.

Anthem spokesperson Michael Bowman wrote in an email that “there has been no medical denials or denial of coverage” because Anthem “preapproved coverage for these services.”

However, even after the preapproval was given, Anthem responded to Mr. Chevalier’s claims by stating the electrolysis would not be reimbursed because the procedure is considered cosmetic, rather than medically necessary. This is regardless of Mr. Chevalier’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the psychological distress felt when someone’s biological sex and gender identity don’t match – which many doctors consider a medically legitimate reason for hair removal.

Bowman wrote that “once this issue was identified, Anthem implemented an internal process which included a manual override in the billing system.”

Still, Mr. Chevalier filed a complaint with the California Department of Managed Health Care, and the state declared Anthem Blue Cross out of compliance. Additionally, after KHN started asking Anthem questions about Chevalier’s bills, two claims that had not been addressed since April were resolved in July. So far, Anthem has reimbursed Chevalier around $8,000.

Some procedures that trans patients receive can also be excluded from coverage because insurance companies consider them “sex specific.” For example, a transgender man’s gynecological visit may not be covered because his insurance plan covers those visits only for people enrolled as women.

“There is always this question of: What gender should you tell the insurance company?” said Nick Gorton, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Davis, Calif. Dr. Gorton, who is trans, recommends his patients with insurance plans that exclude trans care calculate the out-of-pocket costs that would be required for certain procedures based on whether the patient lists themselves as male or female on their insurance paperwork. For example, Dr. Gorton said, the question for a trans man becomes “what’s more expensive – paying for testosterone or paying for a Pap smear?” – since insurance likely won’t cover both.

For years, some physicians helped trans patients get coverage by finding other medical reasons for their trans-related care. Dr. Gorton said that if, for instance, a transgender man wanted a hysterectomy but his insurance didn’t cover gender-affirming care, Dr. Gorton would enter the ICD-10 code for pelvic pain, as opposed to gender dysphoria, into the patient’s billing record. Pelvic pain is a legitimate reason for the surgery and is commonly accepted by insurance providers, Dr. Gorton said. But some insurance companies pushed back, and he had to find other ways to help his patients.

In 2005, California passed a first-of-its-kind law that prohibits discrimination by health insurance on the basis of gender or gender identity. Now, 24 states and Washington, D.C., forbid private insurance from excluding transgender-related health care benefits.

Consequently, Dr. Gorton no longer needs to use different codes for patients seeking gender-affirming care at his practice in California. But physicians in other states are still struggling.

When Eric Meininger, MD, MPH, an internist and pediatrician at Indiana University Health’s gender health program in Indianapolis, treats a trans kid seeking hormone therapy, he commonly uses the ICD-10 code for “medication management” as the primary reason for the patient’s visit. That’s because Indiana has no law providing insurance protections for LGBTQ+ people, and when gender dysphoria is listed as the primary reason, insurance companies have denied coverage.

“It’s frustrating,” Dr. Meininger said. In a patient’s billing record, he sometimes provides multiple diagnoses, including gender dysphoria, to increase the likelihood that a procedure will be covered. “It’s not hard usually to come up with five or seven or eight diagnoses for someone because there’s lots of vague ones out there.”

Implementing ICD-11 won’t fix all the coding problems, as insurance companies may still refuse to cover procedures related to gender incongruence even though it is listed as a sexual health condition. It also won’t change the fact that many states still allow insurance to exclude gender-affirming care. But in terms of reducing stigma, it’s a step forward, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said.

One reason the United States took so long to switch to ICD-10 is that the American Medical Association strongly opposed the move. It argued the new system would put an incredible burden on doctors. Physicians would have to “contend with 68,000 diagnosis codes – a fivefold increase from the approximately 13,000 diagnosis codes in use today,” the AMA wrote in a 2014 letter. Implementing software to update providers’ coding systems would also be costly, dealing a financial blow to small medical practices, the association argued.

Unlike past coding systems, ICD-11 is fully electronic, with no physical manual of codes, and can be incorporated into a medical facility’s current coding system without requiring a new rollout, said Christian Lindmeier, a WHO spokesperson.

Whether these changes will make the adoption of the new edition easier in the United States is yet to be seen. For now, many trans patients in need of gender-affirming care must pay their bills out of pocket, fight their insurance company for coverage, or rely on the generosity of others.

“Even though I did get reimbursed eventually, the reimbursements were delayed, and it burned up a lot of my time,” Mr. Chevalier said. “Most people would have just given up.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In 2021, Tim Chevalier received the first of many coverage denials from his insurance company for the hair-removal procedure he needed as part of a phalloplasty, the creation of a penis.

Electrolysis is a common procedure among transgender people like Mr. Chevalier, a software developer in Oakland, Calif.. In some cases, it’s used to remove unwanted hair from the face or body. But it’s also required for a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina, because all hair must be removed from the tissue that will be relocated during surgery.

Mr. Chevalier’s insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, told him he needed what’s known as a prior authorization for the procedure. Even after Mr. Chevalier received the authorization, he said, his reimbursement claims kept getting denied. According to Mr. Chevalier, Anthem said the procedure was considered cosmetic.

Many trans patients have trouble getting their insurers to cover gender-affirming care. One reason is transphobia within the U.S. health care system, but another involves how medical diagnoses and procedures are coded for insurance companies. Nationwide, health care providers use a list of diagnostic codes provided by the ICD-10. And many of those, advocates for transgender people say, haven’t caught up to the needs of patients. Such diagnostic codes provide the basis for determining which procedures, such as electrolysis or surgery, insurance will cover.

“It’s widely regarded that the codes are very limited in ICD-10,” said Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

She advocates for a move to the 11th edition of the coding system, which was endorsed by the World Health Organization in 2019 and began to be adopted around the globe in February. Today, more than 34 countries use ICD-11.

The new edition has replaced outdated terms like “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder” with “gender incongruence,” which is no longer classified as a mental health condition, but as a sexual health one. This is crucial in reducing the stigmatization of trans people in health care, said Dr. Olson-Kennedy.

A move away from the mental health classification may also mean more coverage of gender-affirming care by insurance companies, which sometimes question mental health claims more rigorously than those for physical illnesses. WHO officials have said they hope that adding gender incongruence to a sexual health chapter will “help increase access to care for health interventions” and “destigmatize the condition,” according to the WHO website.

However, history suggests that ICD-11 likely won’t be implemented in the United States for years. The WHO first endorsed ICD-10 in 1990, but the United States didn’t implement it for 25 years.

Meanwhile, patients who identify as transgender and their doctors are spending hours trying to get coverage – or using crowdfunding to cover big out-of-pocket bills. Mr. Chevalier estimated he has received 78 hours of electrolysis at $140 per hour, costing $10,920.

Anthem spokesperson Michael Bowman wrote in an email that “there has been no medical denials or denial of coverage” because Anthem “preapproved coverage for these services.”

However, even after the preapproval was given, Anthem responded to Mr. Chevalier’s claims by stating the electrolysis would not be reimbursed because the procedure is considered cosmetic, rather than medically necessary. This is regardless of Mr. Chevalier’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the psychological distress felt when someone’s biological sex and gender identity don’t match – which many doctors consider a medically legitimate reason for hair removal.

Bowman wrote that “once this issue was identified, Anthem implemented an internal process which included a manual override in the billing system.”

Still, Mr. Chevalier filed a complaint with the California Department of Managed Health Care, and the state declared Anthem Blue Cross out of compliance. Additionally, after KHN started asking Anthem questions about Chevalier’s bills, two claims that had not been addressed since April were resolved in July. So far, Anthem has reimbursed Chevalier around $8,000.

Some procedures that trans patients receive can also be excluded from coverage because insurance companies consider them “sex specific.” For example, a transgender man’s gynecological visit may not be covered because his insurance plan covers those visits only for people enrolled as women.

“There is always this question of: What gender should you tell the insurance company?” said Nick Gorton, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Davis, Calif. Dr. Gorton, who is trans, recommends his patients with insurance plans that exclude trans care calculate the out-of-pocket costs that would be required for certain procedures based on whether the patient lists themselves as male or female on their insurance paperwork. For example, Dr. Gorton said, the question for a trans man becomes “what’s more expensive – paying for testosterone or paying for a Pap smear?” – since insurance likely won’t cover both.

For years, some physicians helped trans patients get coverage by finding other medical reasons for their trans-related care. Dr. Gorton said that if, for instance, a transgender man wanted a hysterectomy but his insurance didn’t cover gender-affirming care, Dr. Gorton would enter the ICD-10 code for pelvic pain, as opposed to gender dysphoria, into the patient’s billing record. Pelvic pain is a legitimate reason for the surgery and is commonly accepted by insurance providers, Dr. Gorton said. But some insurance companies pushed back, and he had to find other ways to help his patients.

In 2005, California passed a first-of-its-kind law that prohibits discrimination by health insurance on the basis of gender or gender identity. Now, 24 states and Washington, D.C., forbid private insurance from excluding transgender-related health care benefits.

Consequently, Dr. Gorton no longer needs to use different codes for patients seeking gender-affirming care at his practice in California. But physicians in other states are still struggling.

When Eric Meininger, MD, MPH, an internist and pediatrician at Indiana University Health’s gender health program in Indianapolis, treats a trans kid seeking hormone therapy, he commonly uses the ICD-10 code for “medication management” as the primary reason for the patient’s visit. That’s because Indiana has no law providing insurance protections for LGBTQ+ people, and when gender dysphoria is listed as the primary reason, insurance companies have denied coverage.

“It’s frustrating,” Dr. Meininger said. In a patient’s billing record, he sometimes provides multiple diagnoses, including gender dysphoria, to increase the likelihood that a procedure will be covered. “It’s not hard usually to come up with five or seven or eight diagnoses for someone because there’s lots of vague ones out there.”

Implementing ICD-11 won’t fix all the coding problems, as insurance companies may still refuse to cover procedures related to gender incongruence even though it is listed as a sexual health condition. It also won’t change the fact that many states still allow insurance to exclude gender-affirming care. But in terms of reducing stigma, it’s a step forward, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said.

One reason the United States took so long to switch to ICD-10 is that the American Medical Association strongly opposed the move. It argued the new system would put an incredible burden on doctors. Physicians would have to “contend with 68,000 diagnosis codes – a fivefold increase from the approximately 13,000 diagnosis codes in use today,” the AMA wrote in a 2014 letter. Implementing software to update providers’ coding systems would also be costly, dealing a financial blow to small medical practices, the association argued.

Unlike past coding systems, ICD-11 is fully electronic, with no physical manual of codes, and can be incorporated into a medical facility’s current coding system without requiring a new rollout, said Christian Lindmeier, a WHO spokesperson.

Whether these changes will make the adoption of the new edition easier in the United States is yet to be seen. For now, many trans patients in need of gender-affirming care must pay their bills out of pocket, fight their insurance company for coverage, or rely on the generosity of others.

“Even though I did get reimbursed eventually, the reimbursements were delayed, and it burned up a lot of my time,” Mr. Chevalier said. “Most people would have just given up.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In 2021, Tim Chevalier received the first of many coverage denials from his insurance company for the hair-removal procedure he needed as part of a phalloplasty, the creation of a penis.

Electrolysis is a common procedure among transgender people like Mr. Chevalier, a software developer in Oakland, Calif.. In some cases, it’s used to remove unwanted hair from the face or body. But it’s also required for a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina, because all hair must be removed from the tissue that will be relocated during surgery.

Mr. Chevalier’s insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, told him he needed what’s known as a prior authorization for the procedure. Even after Mr. Chevalier received the authorization, he said, his reimbursement claims kept getting denied. According to Mr. Chevalier, Anthem said the procedure was considered cosmetic.

Many trans patients have trouble getting their insurers to cover gender-affirming care. One reason is transphobia within the U.S. health care system, but another involves how medical diagnoses and procedures are coded for insurance companies. Nationwide, health care providers use a list of diagnostic codes provided by the ICD-10. And many of those, advocates for transgender people say, haven’t caught up to the needs of patients. Such diagnostic codes provide the basis for determining which procedures, such as electrolysis or surgery, insurance will cover.

“It’s widely regarded that the codes are very limited in ICD-10,” said Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

She advocates for a move to the 11th edition of the coding system, which was endorsed by the World Health Organization in 2019 and began to be adopted around the globe in February. Today, more than 34 countries use ICD-11.

The new edition has replaced outdated terms like “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder” with “gender incongruence,” which is no longer classified as a mental health condition, but as a sexual health one. This is crucial in reducing the stigmatization of trans people in health care, said Dr. Olson-Kennedy.

A move away from the mental health classification may also mean more coverage of gender-affirming care by insurance companies, which sometimes question mental health claims more rigorously than those for physical illnesses. WHO officials have said they hope that adding gender incongruence to a sexual health chapter will “help increase access to care for health interventions” and “destigmatize the condition,” according to the WHO website.

However, history suggests that ICD-11 likely won’t be implemented in the United States for years. The WHO first endorsed ICD-10 in 1990, but the United States didn’t implement it for 25 years.

Meanwhile, patients who identify as transgender and their doctors are spending hours trying to get coverage – or using crowdfunding to cover big out-of-pocket bills. Mr. Chevalier estimated he has received 78 hours of electrolysis at $140 per hour, costing $10,920.

Anthem spokesperson Michael Bowman wrote in an email that “there has been no medical denials or denial of coverage” because Anthem “preapproved coverage for these services.”

However, even after the preapproval was given, Anthem responded to Mr. Chevalier’s claims by stating the electrolysis would not be reimbursed because the procedure is considered cosmetic, rather than medically necessary. This is regardless of Mr. Chevalier’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the psychological distress felt when someone’s biological sex and gender identity don’t match – which many doctors consider a medically legitimate reason for hair removal.

Bowman wrote that “once this issue was identified, Anthem implemented an internal process which included a manual override in the billing system.”

Still, Mr. Chevalier filed a complaint with the California Department of Managed Health Care, and the state declared Anthem Blue Cross out of compliance. Additionally, after KHN started asking Anthem questions about Chevalier’s bills, two claims that had not been addressed since April were resolved in July. So far, Anthem has reimbursed Chevalier around $8,000.

Some procedures that trans patients receive can also be excluded from coverage because insurance companies consider them “sex specific.” For example, a transgender man’s gynecological visit may not be covered because his insurance plan covers those visits only for people enrolled as women.

“There is always this question of: What gender should you tell the insurance company?” said Nick Gorton, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Davis, Calif. Dr. Gorton, who is trans, recommends his patients with insurance plans that exclude trans care calculate the out-of-pocket costs that would be required for certain procedures based on whether the patient lists themselves as male or female on their insurance paperwork. For example, Dr. Gorton said, the question for a trans man becomes “what’s more expensive – paying for testosterone or paying for a Pap smear?” – since insurance likely won’t cover both.

For years, some physicians helped trans patients get coverage by finding other medical reasons for their trans-related care. Dr. Gorton said that if, for instance, a transgender man wanted a hysterectomy but his insurance didn’t cover gender-affirming care, Dr. Gorton would enter the ICD-10 code for pelvic pain, as opposed to gender dysphoria, into the patient’s billing record. Pelvic pain is a legitimate reason for the surgery and is commonly accepted by insurance providers, Dr. Gorton said. But some insurance companies pushed back, and he had to find other ways to help his patients.

In 2005, California passed a first-of-its-kind law that prohibits discrimination by health insurance on the basis of gender or gender identity. Now, 24 states and Washington, D.C., forbid private insurance from excluding transgender-related health care benefits.

Consequently, Dr. Gorton no longer needs to use different codes for patients seeking gender-affirming care at his practice in California. But physicians in other states are still struggling.

When Eric Meininger, MD, MPH, an internist and pediatrician at Indiana University Health’s gender health program in Indianapolis, treats a trans kid seeking hormone therapy, he commonly uses the ICD-10 code for “medication management” as the primary reason for the patient’s visit. That’s because Indiana has no law providing insurance protections for LGBTQ+ people, and when gender dysphoria is listed as the primary reason, insurance companies have denied coverage.

“It’s frustrating,” Dr. Meininger said. In a patient’s billing record, he sometimes provides multiple diagnoses, including gender dysphoria, to increase the likelihood that a procedure will be covered. “It’s not hard usually to come up with five or seven or eight diagnoses for someone because there’s lots of vague ones out there.”

Implementing ICD-11 won’t fix all the coding problems, as insurance companies may still refuse to cover procedures related to gender incongruence even though it is listed as a sexual health condition. It also won’t change the fact that many states still allow insurance to exclude gender-affirming care. But in terms of reducing stigma, it’s a step forward, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said.

One reason the United States took so long to switch to ICD-10 is that the American Medical Association strongly opposed the move. It argued the new system would put an incredible burden on doctors. Physicians would have to “contend with 68,000 diagnosis codes – a fivefold increase from the approximately 13,000 diagnosis codes in use today,” the AMA wrote in a 2014 letter. Implementing software to update providers’ coding systems would also be costly, dealing a financial blow to small medical practices, the association argued.

Unlike past coding systems, ICD-11 is fully electronic, with no physical manual of codes, and can be incorporated into a medical facility’s current coding system without requiring a new rollout, said Christian Lindmeier, a WHO spokesperson.

Whether these changes will make the adoption of the new edition easier in the United States is yet to be seen. For now, many trans patients in need of gender-affirming care must pay their bills out of pocket, fight their insurance company for coverage, or rely on the generosity of others.

“Even though I did get reimbursed eventually, the reimbursements were delayed, and it burned up a lot of my time,” Mr. Chevalier said. “Most people would have just given up.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

At the risk of losing a digit or two I am going to dip my toes into the murky waters of gender-affirming care, sometimes referred to as trans care. Recently, Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, released two statements, one in the Aug. 22, 2022, Wall Street Journal, the other summarized in the Aug. 25, 2022, AAP Daily Briefing, in which she attempts to clarify the academy’s position on gender-affirming care. They were well-worded and heroic attempts to clear the air. I fear these explanations will do little to encourage informed and courteous discussions between those entrenched on either side of a disagreement that is unfortunately being played out on media outlets and state legislatures instead of the offices of primary care physicians and specialists where it belongs.

The current mess is an example of what can happen when there is a paucity of reliable data, a superabundance of emotion, and a system that feeds on instant news and sound bites with little understanding of how science should work.

Some of the turmoil is a response to the notion that in certain situations gender dysphoria may be a condition that can be learned or mimicked from exposure to other gender-dysphoric individuals. Two papers anchor either side of the debate. The first paper was published in 2018 by a then–Brown University health expert who hypothesized the existence of a condition which she labeled “rapid-onset gender dysphoria [ROGD]”. One can imagine that “social contagion” might be considered as one of the potential contributors to this hypothesized condition. Unfortunately, the publication of the paper ignited a firestorm of criticism from a segment of the population that advocates for the transgender community, prompting the university and the online publisher to backpedal and reevaluate the quality of the research on which the paper was based.

One of the concerns voiced at the time of publication was that the research could be used to support the transphobic agenda by some state legislatures hoping to ban gender-affirming care. How large a role the paper played in the current spate of legislation in is unclear. I suspect it has been small. But, one can’t deny the potential exists.

Leaping forward to 2022, the second paper was published in the August issue of Pediatrics, in which the authors attempted to test the ROGD hypothesis and question the inference of social contagion.

The investigators found that in 2017 and 2019 the birth ratios of transgender-diverse (TGD) individuals did not favor assigned female-sex-at-birth (AFAB) individuals. They also discovered that in their sample overall there was a decrease in the percentage of adolescents who self-identified as TGD. Not surprisingly, “bullying victimization and suicidality were higher among TGD youth when compared with their cisgender peers.” The authors concluded that their findings were “incongruent with an ROGD hypothesis that posits social contagion” nor should it be used to restrict access to gender-affirming care.

There you have it. Are we any closer to understanding gender dysphoria and its origins? I don’t think so. The media is somewhat less confused. The NBC News online presence headline on Aug. 3, 2022, reads “‘Social contagion’ isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds.”

My sense is that the general population perceives an increase in the prevalence of gender dysphoria. It is very likely that this perception is primarily a reflection of a more compassionate and educated attitude in a significant portion of the population making it less challenging for gender-dysphoric youth to surface. However, it should not surprise us that some parents and observers are concerned that a percentage of this increased prevalence is the result of social contagion. Nor should it surprise us that some advocates for the trans population feel threatened by this hypothesis.

Neither of these studies really answers the question of whether some cases of gender dysphoria are the result of social contagion. Both were small samples using methodology that has been called into question. The bottom line is that we need more studies and must remain open to considering their results. That’s how science should work.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

PORTLAND, ORE. – If you’re uncomfortable asking new dermatology patients about their sexual orientation and gender identity, they’re likely to sense your unease.

“From the patient perspective, there’s nothing more awkward than having an awkward provider asking awkward questions,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In 2014, Sean Cahill, PhD, and Harvey Makadon, MD, published an article recommending the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity questions in electronic medical records, a practice that Dr. Yeung characterized as “the most patient-centered way to collect sexual orientation and gender identity information. The most important thing is to ask routinely on an intake form where they fill it out themselves. All electronic medical records have the capacity to do so.”

On the other hand, when asking new patients about their sexual orientation and gender identity in person, it’s important to normalize the discussion and ask in an inclusive way, said Dr. Yeung, who was the lead author on published recommendations on dermatologic care for LGBTQ persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “For example, I always say, ‘I’m Howa Yeung. I use him pronouns,’ ” he said. “ ‘How should I address you?’ Then they will tell you. Allow people to lead the way.”

Other suggested tips in the JAAD article include to avoid using terms such as “sir” or “miss” until the patient’s gender identify is ascertained. Instead, use gender-neutral terms such as “they” or “the patient” when referring to new patients. Do not use the pronoun “it.” If a patient’s name does not match a name in the medical record, ask, “What is the name on your insurance/records?” and avoid assuming gender(s) of a patient’s partner or parents. Instead, consider asking, “Who did you bring with you today?” “Are you in a relationship?” “What are the names of your parents?”

Normalizing questions about the patient’s sexual history is also key. “I tell patients that I routinely ask about sexual history for patients with similar skin issues because it helps me provide the best care for them,” Dr. Yeung said. “I also discuss confidentiality and documentation.”

Dr. Yeung reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – If you’re uncomfortable asking new dermatology patients about their sexual orientation and gender identity, they’re likely to sense your unease.

“From the patient perspective, there’s nothing more awkward than having an awkward provider asking awkward questions,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In 2014, Sean Cahill, PhD, and Harvey Makadon, MD, published an article recommending the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity questions in electronic medical records, a practice that Dr. Yeung characterized as “the most patient-centered way to collect sexual orientation and gender identity information. The most important thing is to ask routinely on an intake form where they fill it out themselves. All electronic medical records have the capacity to do so.”

On the other hand, when asking new patients about their sexual orientation and gender identity in person, it’s important to normalize the discussion and ask in an inclusive way, said Dr. Yeung, who was the lead author on published recommendations on dermatologic care for LGBTQ persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “For example, I always say, ‘I’m Howa Yeung. I use him pronouns,’ ” he said. “ ‘How should I address you?’ Then they will tell you. Allow people to lead the way.”

Other suggested tips in the JAAD article include to avoid using terms such as “sir” or “miss” until the patient’s gender identify is ascertained. Instead, use gender-neutral terms such as “they” or “the patient” when referring to new patients. Do not use the pronoun “it.” If a patient’s name does not match a name in the medical record, ask, “What is the name on your insurance/records?” and avoid assuming gender(s) of a patient’s partner or parents. Instead, consider asking, “Who did you bring with you today?” “Are you in a relationship?” “What are the names of your parents?”

Normalizing questions about the patient’s sexual history is also key. “I tell patients that I routinely ask about sexual history for patients with similar skin issues because it helps me provide the best care for them,” Dr. Yeung said. “I also discuss confidentiality and documentation.”

Dr. Yeung reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – If you’re uncomfortable asking new dermatology patients about their sexual orientation and gender identity, they’re likely to sense your unease.

“From the patient perspective, there’s nothing more awkward than having an awkward provider asking awkward questions,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In 2014, Sean Cahill, PhD, and Harvey Makadon, MD, published an article recommending the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity questions in electronic medical records, a practice that Dr. Yeung characterized as “the most patient-centered way to collect sexual orientation and gender identity information. The most important thing is to ask routinely on an intake form where they fill it out themselves. All electronic medical records have the capacity to do so.”

On the other hand, when asking new patients about their sexual orientation and gender identity in person, it’s important to normalize the discussion and ask in an inclusive way, said Dr. Yeung, who was the lead author on published recommendations on dermatologic care for LGBTQ persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “For example, I always say, ‘I’m Howa Yeung. I use him pronouns,’ ” he said. “ ‘How should I address you?’ Then they will tell you. Allow people to lead the way.”

Other suggested tips in the JAAD article include to avoid using terms such as “sir” or “miss” until the patient’s gender identify is ascertained. Instead, use gender-neutral terms such as “they” or “the patient” when referring to new patients. Do not use the pronoun “it.” If a patient’s name does not match a name in the medical record, ask, “What is the name on your insurance/records?” and avoid assuming gender(s) of a patient’s partner or parents. Instead, consider asking, “Who did you bring with you today?” “Are you in a relationship?” “What are the names of your parents?”

Normalizing questions about the patient’s sexual history is also key. “I tell patients that I routinely ask about sexual history for patients with similar skin issues because it helps me provide the best care for them,” Dr. Yeung said. “I also discuss confidentiality and documentation.”

Dr. Yeung reported having no relevant disclosures.

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gynecologic and obstetric health care needs of transgender and gender-diverse adults, including fertility preservation, ending masculinizing hormones in pregnancy, and support for “chest-feeding” are proposed in a novel draft guideline issued by the U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The draft Green-top Guideline on Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is open for consultation and comment until Sept. 6. It aims to address the specific needs of transgender and gender-diverse individuals that, according to the guideline, are currently not consistently included in specialist training programs or in continuing professional development.

With a rise in the number of people seeking to transition, obstetricians and gynecologists are seeing more transgender and gender-diverse patients. Phil Rolland, MD, consultant gynecological oncologist from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, and member of the guideline committee, said that, “It is highly likely that if an obstetrician or gynaecologist hasn’t already consulted or treated a trans or gender-diverse patient then it is only a matter of time before they do.”

He stressed the importance of ensuring inclusivity in obstetric and gynecologic care. “We know that trans people are more likely to have poor experiences when accessing health care, and we can do better.”

The U.K.-based guideline follows a similar document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put in place in March 2021, as reported by this news organization. It called for greater “awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity” in caring for these patients and noted that “bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients.”
 

Guideline addresses fertility preservation, obstetric care, and more

Regarding fertility preservation, discussions around protecting future options should be held before endocrine interventions and/or gender-affirming genital or pelvic surgery procedures, says the guideline. In addition, gynecologic problems that can be experienced need to be explained.

The guideline also addresses obstetric care, advising that trans men on long-acting masculinizing hormone therapy should stop therapy 3 months prior to conception. People who conceive while taking masculinizing hormone therapy should discontinue the therapy as soon as possible.

Birth mode should be discussed with all trans men who plan to conceive, ideally at a prepregnancy counseling appointment, but at minimum, before the third trimester. Choice of feeding manner should also be addressed in the antenatal period, with trans men who wish to chest feed offered chest-feeding support, similar to that given to cis women.

The RCOG guideline comes in the wake of the U.K. government’s new Women’s Health Strategy for England, released in July, which notes that trans men (with female reproductive organs) should be able to access screening services for cervical and breast cancer, a position upheld by the RCOG guideline.

Other key recommendations include that obstetricians and gynecologists, when approached by transgender and gender-diverse people to help with identity-related issues, should liaise with gender-identity specialist services to provide appropriate care.
 

Removing bias, providing affirming care

Asha Kasliwal, MD, consultant in Community Gynaecology and Reproductive Health Care, Manchester, England, and president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, also reflected on how transgender and gender-diverse people often feel uncomfortable accessing care, which could lead to, “many people failing to seek or continue health care because of concerns over how they will be treated,” adding that there were associated reports of poor clinical outcomes.

She highlighted that the draft guideline pointed out the importance of language during consultation with transgender and gender-diverse people, noting that “misuse of language, and particularly deliberate misuse of language associated with the sex assigned at birth (misgendering), may cause profound offence.”

Dr. Kasliwal cited the example of “using the correct pronouns when addressing someone and receiving any information about a person’s gender diversity neutrally and nonjudgementally.”

Edward Morris, MD, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, acknowledged that trans and gender-diverse individuals say they often feel judged and misunderstood by the health service. “This can act as a barrier for them when it comes to accessing vital care, and we as health care professionals have a role to play in making them feel listened to and recognized.”

“This draft guideline is our first attempt to ensure we are providing personalised care for all our patients,” said Dr. Morris. “We welcome feedback on this draft to ensure the guideline is the best as it can be for clinicians and the trans and gender-diverse individuals who use our services.”

The draft guideline as peer-review draft, Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is available on the RCOG website. Consultation is open until Sept. 6, 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gynecologic and obstetric health care needs of transgender and gender-diverse adults, including fertility preservation, ending masculinizing hormones in pregnancy, and support for “chest-feeding” are proposed in a novel draft guideline issued by the U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The draft Green-top Guideline on Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is open for consultation and comment until Sept. 6. It aims to address the specific needs of transgender and gender-diverse individuals that, according to the guideline, are currently not consistently included in specialist training programs or in continuing professional development.

With a rise in the number of people seeking to transition, obstetricians and gynecologists are seeing more transgender and gender-diverse patients. Phil Rolland, MD, consultant gynecological oncologist from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, and member of the guideline committee, said that, “It is highly likely that if an obstetrician or gynaecologist hasn’t already consulted or treated a trans or gender-diverse patient then it is only a matter of time before they do.”

He stressed the importance of ensuring inclusivity in obstetric and gynecologic care. “We know that trans people are more likely to have poor experiences when accessing health care, and we can do better.”

The U.K.-based guideline follows a similar document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put in place in March 2021, as reported by this news organization. It called for greater “awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity” in caring for these patients and noted that “bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients.”
 

Guideline addresses fertility preservation, obstetric care, and more

Regarding fertility preservation, discussions around protecting future options should be held before endocrine interventions and/or gender-affirming genital or pelvic surgery procedures, says the guideline. In addition, gynecologic problems that can be experienced need to be explained.

The guideline also addresses obstetric care, advising that trans men on long-acting masculinizing hormone therapy should stop therapy 3 months prior to conception. People who conceive while taking masculinizing hormone therapy should discontinue the therapy as soon as possible.

Birth mode should be discussed with all trans men who plan to conceive, ideally at a prepregnancy counseling appointment, but at minimum, before the third trimester. Choice of feeding manner should also be addressed in the antenatal period, with trans men who wish to chest feed offered chest-feeding support, similar to that given to cis women.

The RCOG guideline comes in the wake of the U.K. government’s new Women’s Health Strategy for England, released in July, which notes that trans men (with female reproductive organs) should be able to access screening services for cervical and breast cancer, a position upheld by the RCOG guideline.

Other key recommendations include that obstetricians and gynecologists, when approached by transgender and gender-diverse people to help with identity-related issues, should liaise with gender-identity specialist services to provide appropriate care.
 

Removing bias, providing affirming care

Asha Kasliwal, MD, consultant in Community Gynaecology and Reproductive Health Care, Manchester, England, and president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, also reflected on how transgender and gender-diverse people often feel uncomfortable accessing care, which could lead to, “many people failing to seek or continue health care because of concerns over how they will be treated,” adding that there were associated reports of poor clinical outcomes.

She highlighted that the draft guideline pointed out the importance of language during consultation with transgender and gender-diverse people, noting that “misuse of language, and particularly deliberate misuse of language associated with the sex assigned at birth (misgendering), may cause profound offence.”

Dr. Kasliwal cited the example of “using the correct pronouns when addressing someone and receiving any information about a person’s gender diversity neutrally and nonjudgementally.”

Edward Morris, MD, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, acknowledged that trans and gender-diverse individuals say they often feel judged and misunderstood by the health service. “This can act as a barrier for them when it comes to accessing vital care, and we as health care professionals have a role to play in making them feel listened to and recognized.”

“This draft guideline is our first attempt to ensure we are providing personalised care for all our patients,” said Dr. Morris. “We welcome feedback on this draft to ensure the guideline is the best as it can be for clinicians and the trans and gender-diverse individuals who use our services.”

The draft guideline as peer-review draft, Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is available on the RCOG website. Consultation is open until Sept. 6, 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gynecologic and obstetric health care needs of transgender and gender-diverse adults, including fertility preservation, ending masculinizing hormones in pregnancy, and support for “chest-feeding” are proposed in a novel draft guideline issued by the U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The draft Green-top Guideline on Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is open for consultation and comment until Sept. 6. It aims to address the specific needs of transgender and gender-diverse individuals that, according to the guideline, are currently not consistently included in specialist training programs or in continuing professional development.

With a rise in the number of people seeking to transition, obstetricians and gynecologists are seeing more transgender and gender-diverse patients. Phil Rolland, MD, consultant gynecological oncologist from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, and member of the guideline committee, said that, “It is highly likely that if an obstetrician or gynaecologist hasn’t already consulted or treated a trans or gender-diverse patient then it is only a matter of time before they do.”

He stressed the importance of ensuring inclusivity in obstetric and gynecologic care. “We know that trans people are more likely to have poor experiences when accessing health care, and we can do better.”

The U.K.-based guideline follows a similar document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put in place in March 2021, as reported by this news organization. It called for greater “awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity” in caring for these patients and noted that “bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients.”
 

Guideline addresses fertility preservation, obstetric care, and more

Regarding fertility preservation, discussions around protecting future options should be held before endocrine interventions and/or gender-affirming genital or pelvic surgery procedures, says the guideline. In addition, gynecologic problems that can be experienced need to be explained.

The guideline also addresses obstetric care, advising that trans men on long-acting masculinizing hormone therapy should stop therapy 3 months prior to conception. People who conceive while taking masculinizing hormone therapy should discontinue the therapy as soon as possible.

Birth mode should be discussed with all trans men who plan to conceive, ideally at a prepregnancy counseling appointment, but at minimum, before the third trimester. Choice of feeding manner should also be addressed in the antenatal period, with trans men who wish to chest feed offered chest-feeding support, similar to that given to cis women.

The RCOG guideline comes in the wake of the U.K. government’s new Women’s Health Strategy for England, released in July, which notes that trans men (with female reproductive organs) should be able to access screening services for cervical and breast cancer, a position upheld by the RCOG guideline.

Other key recommendations include that obstetricians and gynecologists, when approached by transgender and gender-diverse people to help with identity-related issues, should liaise with gender-identity specialist services to provide appropriate care.
 

Removing bias, providing affirming care

Asha Kasliwal, MD, consultant in Community Gynaecology and Reproductive Health Care, Manchester, England, and president of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, also reflected on how transgender and gender-diverse people often feel uncomfortable accessing care, which could lead to, “many people failing to seek or continue health care because of concerns over how they will be treated,” adding that there were associated reports of poor clinical outcomes.

She highlighted that the draft guideline pointed out the importance of language during consultation with transgender and gender-diverse people, noting that “misuse of language, and particularly deliberate misuse of language associated with the sex assigned at birth (misgendering), may cause profound offence.”

Dr. Kasliwal cited the example of “using the correct pronouns when addressing someone and receiving any information about a person’s gender diversity neutrally and nonjudgementally.”

Edward Morris, MD, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, acknowledged that trans and gender-diverse individuals say they often feel judged and misunderstood by the health service. “This can act as a barrier for them when it comes to accessing vital care, and we as health care professionals have a role to play in making them feel listened to and recognized.”

“This draft guideline is our first attempt to ensure we are providing personalised care for all our patients,” said Dr. Morris. “We welcome feedback on this draft to ensure the guideline is the best as it can be for clinicians and the trans and gender-diverse individuals who use our services.”

The draft guideline as peer-review draft, Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is available on the RCOG website. Consultation is open until Sept. 6, 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transgender children, even those as young as 9 or 10 years old, already show increased susceptibility to mental health problems compared with their cisgender peers, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed a sample of more than 7000 children aged 9-10 years in the general population and found those who reported being transgender scored considerably higher on all six subscales of the DSM-5-oriented Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL).

Transgender children had almost sixfold higher odds of suicidality and over twice the odds of depressive and anxiety problems, compared with cisgender children. Moreover, transgender children displayed higher levels of mental health problems compared with previous studies of transgender children recruited from specialist gender clinics.

“Our findings emphasize the vulnerability of transgender children, including those who may not yet have accessed specialist support,” senior author Kenneth C. Pang, MBBS, BMedSc, PhD, associate professor, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Royal Children’s Hospital, Australia, told this news organization.

“Clinicians providing general health care to transgender children should keep this vulnerability in mind and proactively address any mental health problems that exist,” he said.

The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher levels of support?

“We felt this study was important to conduct because previous studies regarding the mental health of transgender children have been drawn from children receiving specialist gender-related care,” Dr. Pang said.

“Transgender children receiving such care are likely to enjoy higher levels of support than those unable to access such services, and this might create differences in mental health,” he added.

To investigate this issue, the researchers turned to participants (n = 7,169; mean age, 10.3 years) in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study.

“The ABCD study is a longitudinal study of over 11,000 children who were recruited to reflect the sociodemographic variation of the U.S. population,” lead author Douglas H. Russell, MSc, a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne, told this news organization.

To be included in the current study, children had to understand and respond to the question “Are you transgender?”

The researchers compared mental health outcomes between transgender and cisgender children (n = 58 and n = 7,111, respectively) using the CBCL, which study participants had completed at baseline.
 

Key protective factor

The transgender children recorded higher mean T scores for all six subscales of the CBCL, although all children scored in the references range; and the standardized mean difference was “small.”

Suicidality was measured by summing the two suicide-related items in the parent-report CBCL assessing suicidal ideation and attempts.

“For the CBCL, T scores are calculated for measures that are scored on a continuous scale,” Dr. Pang noted. “Responses to the suicidality questions on the CBCL were assessed in a categorical manner (at risk of suicide vs. not), as previously described by others. So T scores were therefore not able to be calculated.”

When the investigators determined the proportion of cisgender and transgender children who scored in the “borderline” or “clinical” range (T score, 65), they found increased odds of transgender children scoring in that range in all six subscales, as well as suicidality.

The researchers note the results for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant problems were not statistically significant.

Previous studies that used clinical samples of young transgender children (aged 5 -11 years) reported lower rates of depression and anxiety than what was found in the current study.

“Transgender children in the general population displayed higher levels of mental health problems compared to previous studies of transgender children recruited from specialist gender clinics,” Mr. Russell said.

One reason for that may be children in specialist clinics “are likely to have support from their families (a key protective factor for the mental health of transgender young people); in comparison, many transgender children in the general population lack parental support for their gender,” the investigators wrote.

“Our findings suggest that by 9 to 10 years of age transgender children already show increased susceptibility to mental health problems compared with their cisgender peers, which has important public health implications,” they added.

The researchers noted that whether this susceptibility “is due to stigma, minority stress, discrimination, or gender dysphoria is unclear, but providing appropriate mental health supports to this vulnerable group is paramount.”
 

“Pathologizing and damaging”

Commenting for this news organiztion, Jack L. Turban, MD, incoming assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, said that “sadly” the findings are “largely in line with past studies that have shown dramatic mental health disparities” for transgender and gender diverse youth.

“The dramatically elevated odds of suicidality warrants particular public health concern,” said Dr. Turban, who was not involved with the study.

He noted these results “come at a time when transgender youth are under legislative attack in many states throughout the country, and the national rhetoric around them has been pathologizing and damaging.”

Dr. Turban said that he worries “if our national discourse around trans youth doesn’t change soon, that these disparities will worsen.”

Funding was provided to individual investigators by the Hugh Williamson Foundation, the Royal Children’s Hospital foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Mr. Russell and Dr. Pang reported being members of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health. Dr. Pang is a member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and a member of the editorial board of the journal Transgender Health. Dr. Turban reported textbook royalties from Springer Nature, being on the scientific advisory board of Panorama Global (UpSwing Fund), and payments as an expert witness for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP. He has received a pilot research award from AACAP and pharmaceutical partners (Arbor and Pfizer), a research fellowship from the Sorensen Foundation, and freelance payments from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transgender children, even those as young as 9 or 10 years old, already show increased susceptibility to mental health problems compared with their cisgender peers, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed a sample of more than 7000 children aged 9-10 years in the general population and found those who reported being transgender scored considerably higher on all six subscales of the DSM-5-oriented Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL).

Transgender children had almost sixfold higher odds of suicidality and over twice the odds of depressive and anxiety problems, compared with cisgender children. Moreover, transgender children displayed higher levels of mental health problems compared with previous studies of transgender children recruited from specialist gender clinics.

“Our findings emphasize the vulnerability of transgender children, including those who may not yet have accessed specialist support,” senior author Kenneth C. Pang, MBBS, BMedSc, PhD, associate professor, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Royal Children’s Hospital, Australia, told this news organization.

“Clinicians providing general health care to transgender children should keep this vulnerability in mind and proactively address any mental health problems that exist,” he said.

The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher levels of support?

“We felt this study was important to conduct because previous studies regarding the mental health of transgender children have been drawn from children receiving specialist gender-related care,” Dr. Pang said.

“Transgender children receiving such care are likely to enjoy higher levels of support than those unable to access such services, and this might create differences in mental health,” he added.

To investigate this issue, the researchers turned to participants (n = 7,169; mean age, 10.3 years) in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study.

“The ABCD study is a longitudinal study of over 11,000 children who were recruited to reflect the sociodemographic variation of the U.S. population,” lead author Douglas H. Russell, MSc, a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne, told this news organization.

To be included in the current study, children had to understand and respond to the question “Are you transgender?”

The researchers compared mental health outcomes between transgender and cisgender children (n = 58 and n = 7,111, respectively) using the CBCL, which study participants had completed at baseline.
 

Key protective factor

The transgender children recorded higher mean T scores for all six subscales of the CBCL, although all children scored in the references range; and the standardized mean difference was “small.”

Suicidality was measured by summing the two suicide-related items in the parent-report CBCL assessing suicidal ideation and attempts.

“For the CBCL, T scores are calculated for measures that are scored on a continuous scale,” Dr. Pang noted. “Responses to the suicidality questions on the CBCL were assessed in a categorical manner (at risk of suicide vs. not), as previously described by others. So T scores were therefore not able to be calculated.”

When the investigators determined the proportion of cisgender and transgender children who scored in the “borderline” or “clinical” range (T score, 65), they found increased odds of transgender children scoring in that range in all six subscales, as well as suicidality.

The researchers note the results for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant problems were not statistically significant.

Previous studies that used clinical samples of young transgender children (aged 5 -11 years) reported lower rates of depression and anxiety than what was found in the current study.

“Transgender children in the general population displayed higher levels of mental health problems compared to previous studies of transgender children recruited from specialist gender clinics,” Mr. Russell said.

One reason for that may be children in specialist clinics “are likely to have support from their families (a key protective factor for the mental health of transgender young people); in comparison, many transgender children in the general population lack parental support for their gender,” the investigators wrote.

“Our findings suggest that by 9 to 10 years of age transgender children already show increased susceptibility to mental health problems compared with their cisgender peers, which has important public health implications,” they added.

The researchers noted that whether this susceptibility “is due to stigma, minority stress, discrimination, or gender dysphoria is unclear, but providing appropriate mental health supports to this vulnerable group is paramount.”
 

“Pathologizing and damaging”

Commenting for this news organiztion, Jack L. Turban, MD, incoming assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, said that “sadly” the findings are “largely in line with past studies that have shown dramatic mental health disparities” for transgender and gender diverse youth.

“The dramatically elevated odds of suicidality warrants particular public health concern,” said Dr. Turban, who was not involved with the study.

He noted these results “come at a time when transgender youth are under legislative attack in many states throughout the country, and the national rhetoric around them has been pathologizing and damaging.”

Dr. Turban said that he worries “if our national discourse around trans youth doesn’t change soon, that these disparities will worsen.”

Funding was provided to individual investigators by the Hugh Williamson Foundation, the Royal Children’s Hospital foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Mr. Russell and Dr. Pang reported being members of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health. Dr. Pang is a member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and a member of the editorial board of the journal Transgender Health. Dr. Turban reported textbook royalties from Springer Nature, being on the scientific advisory board of Panorama Global (UpSwing Fund), and payments as an expert witness for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP. He has received a pilot research award from AACAP and pharmaceutical partners (Arbor and Pfizer), a research fellowship from the Sorensen Foundation, and freelance payments from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transgender children, even those as young as 9 or 10 years old, already show increased susceptibility to mental health problems compared with their cisgender peers, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed a sample of more than 7000 children aged 9-10 years in the general population and found those who reported being transgender scored considerably higher on all six subscales of the DSM-5-oriented Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL).

Transgender children had almost sixfold higher odds of suicidality and over twice the odds of depressive and anxiety problems, compared with cisgender children. Moreover, transgender children displayed higher levels of mental health problems compared with previous studies of transgender children recruited from specialist gender clinics.

“Our findings emphasize the vulnerability of transgender children, including those who may not yet have accessed specialist support,” senior author Kenneth C. Pang, MBBS, BMedSc, PhD, associate professor, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Royal Children’s Hospital, Australia, told this news organization.

“Clinicians providing general health care to transgender children should keep this vulnerability in mind and proactively address any mental health problems that exist,” he said.

The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher levels of support?

“We felt this study was important to conduct because previous studies regarding the mental health of transgender children have been drawn from children receiving specialist gender-related care,” Dr. Pang said.

“Transgender children receiving such care are likely to enjoy higher levels of support than those unable to access such services, and this might create differences in mental health,” he added.

To investigate this issue, the researchers turned to participants (n = 7,169; mean age, 10.3 years) in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study.

“The ABCD study is a longitudinal study of over 11,000 children who were recruited to reflect the sociodemographic variation of the U.S. population,” lead author Douglas H. Russell, MSc, a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne, told this news organization.

To be included in the current study, children had to understand and respond to the question “Are you transgender?”

The researchers compared mental health outcomes between transgender and cisgender children (n = 58 and n = 7,111, respectively) using the CBCL, which study participants had completed at baseline.
 

Key protective factor

The transgender children recorded higher mean T scores for all six subscales of the CBCL, although all children scored in the references range; and the standardized mean difference was “small.”

Suicidality was measured by summing the two suicide-related items in the parent-report CBCL assessing suicidal ideation and attempts.

“For the CBCL, T scores are calculated for measures that are scored on a continuous scale,” Dr. Pang noted. “Responses to the suicidality questions on the CBCL were assessed in a categorical manner (at risk of suicide vs. not), as previously described by others. So T scores were therefore not able to be calculated.”

When the investigators determined the proportion of cisgender and transgender children who scored in the “borderline” or “clinical” range (T score, 65), they found increased odds of transgender children scoring in that range in all six subscales, as well as suicidality.

The researchers note the results for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant problems were not statistically significant.

Previous studies that used clinical samples of young transgender children (aged 5 -11 years) reported lower rates of depression and anxiety than what was found in the current study.

“Transgender children in the general population displayed higher levels of mental health problems compared to previous studies of transgender children recruited from specialist gender clinics,” Mr. Russell said.

One reason for that may be children in specialist clinics “are likely to have support from their families (a key protective factor for the mental health of transgender young people); in comparison, many transgender children in the general population lack parental support for their gender,” the investigators wrote.

“Our findings suggest that by 9 to 10 years of age transgender children already show increased susceptibility to mental health problems compared with their cisgender peers, which has important public health implications,” they added.

The researchers noted that whether this susceptibility “is due to stigma, minority stress, discrimination, or gender dysphoria is unclear, but providing appropriate mental health supports to this vulnerable group is paramount.”
 

“Pathologizing and damaging”

Commenting for this news organiztion, Jack L. Turban, MD, incoming assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, said that “sadly” the findings are “largely in line with past studies that have shown dramatic mental health disparities” for transgender and gender diverse youth.

“The dramatically elevated odds of suicidality warrants particular public health concern,” said Dr. Turban, who was not involved with the study.

He noted these results “come at a time when transgender youth are under legislative attack in many states throughout the country, and the national rhetoric around them has been pathologizing and damaging.”

Dr. Turban said that he worries “if our national discourse around trans youth doesn’t change soon, that these disparities will worsen.”

Funding was provided to individual investigators by the Hugh Williamson Foundation, the Royal Children’s Hospital foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Mr. Russell and Dr. Pang reported being members of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health. Dr. Pang is a member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and a member of the editorial board of the journal Transgender Health. Dr. Turban reported textbook royalties from Springer Nature, being on the scientific advisory board of Panorama Global (UpSwing Fund), and payments as an expert witness for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP. He has received a pilot research award from AACAP and pharmaceutical partners (Arbor and Pfizer), a research fellowship from the Sorensen Foundation, and freelance payments from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transgender people who medically detransition – those who stop or switch gender-affirming hormone therapy or who undergo a reversal of a surgical reconstruction – report feeling stigmatized by clinicians and receiving inadequate professional support, researchers have found. As a result, such patients often avoid health care at the time they stop undergoing medical interventions, and many consider their overall care to be “suboptimal.”

“Clinicians providing gender-affirming care must be careful to avoid shaming patients who are pursuing hormonal cessation or switching or surgical reversals and instead strive to address current mental and physical health needs,” wrote the authors of the new study, which was published  in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary accompanying the journal article, Jack L. Turban, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, argues that discontinuation of gender-affirming care is rare and is “woefully politicized”.

Dr. Turban wrote, “clinical protocols should be in place to support patients who have dynamic needs surrounding these interventions.” He added that “gender-affirming care should encompass the entirety of an individual’s embodiment goals, even when those goals may have pivoted over time.”

For the study, Kinnon R. MacKinnon, PhD, of York University, Toronto, and colleagues conducted video interviews with 28 Canadian individuals older than 18 years. All identified as “detransitioning, retransitioning, detrans, retrans, reidentifying, [experiencing] a shift in gender identity after initiating transition, or having stopped transition.”

Eighteen (64%) were assigned female sex at birth, and 10 (36%) were assigned male sex at birth. Twenty (71%) were aged 20-29; six were aged 30-39, and two were older than 40. Twenty-one were White. One participant who only socially transitioned was removed from the analysis of medical transitions. About half who medically transitioned did so between the ages of 18 and 24.

Reasons for stopping a medical transition included concerns about physical or mental health, surgical complications, postoperative pain, unsupportive parents or romantic partners, discrimination in the workplace, and difficulty accessing clinical care or gender-affirming surgery.

One participant, who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female, said the transition did not help. The process was “a hot mess,” she said. Because she’d known people who had experienced improvements in mental and physical health as a result of transitioning, especially after initiating hormone therapy, she kept going. But, she said, “the farther I got into transition, the worse my [borderline personality disorder] symptoms and my presentation was.”
 

Lack of clinician support – going ‘cold turkey’

Many individuals reported that they stopped taking hormones “cold turkey,” without the support of a therapist or a clinician, because they did not trust health care providers or had had bad interactions with the medical system.

Most of those who had undergone gender-affirming surgical removal of testes or ovaries in their initial transition said the care they received when they decided to detransition was “bad.” Clinicians were judgmental or had inadequate knowledge about the process, the researchers reported. Some detransitioners said such encounters with clinicians added to their feelings of shame.

One participant who was born female and transitioned to male said she had good relationships with her clinicians and therapist, but she still felt “guilt and shame” about detransitioning back to female. She also worried that those clinicians would view her initial decision as a “mistake” or “through a lens of ‘regret,’ which was inauthentic to her feelings,” the researchers reported.

Another individual who had been assigned female sex at birth said that when she wanted to detransition, she consulted a physician about switching back to estrogen. “She wasn’t very tactful,” the person, who now identifies as female, recalled. “She made comments about how I should have thought about [my initial transition] harder.”

Participants said clinicians lacked sufficient information on detransitioning.

Dr. Turban noted that data are limited on the physiologic and psychological effects of discontinuing exogenous hormone therapy, “because it is such a rare occurrence.” He acknowledged that “more research is needed on the effects of discontinuation so that clinicians can better educate patients.”

The researchers found that most who sought to detransition consulted online forums and networks. The r/detrans discussion group on Reddit, for instance, now has 36,400 members.

Some reported regret that they had transitioned, while others – especially those who identify now as nonbinary or gender-fluid – said they were happy with their initial choice.

Eighteen of the 27 had no regrets and/or had positive feelings about the gender-affirming medications or procedures they had received in the past. Six (22%) had regret, and three were ambivalent. The rate of regret in the relatively small sample is higher than that observed in several other studies. Trans advocates also point out that detransitioning does not necessarily equate with regret.

When asked whether she regretted having undergone a double mastectomy, an individual who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female said, “Some days I do, some days I don’t.” She also said she is not considering breast augmentation. “I’m just going to leave myself alone,” she said, adding that “it’s part of my journey.”

A participant who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as a cisgender woman said that she is mostly regarded by others as a trans person now, although she does not identify that way. But she said taking testosterone in the past was the right decision. “At the time, that was absolutely what I knew I had to do,” she said. “I’m actually not upset about any of the permanent changes it had on my body.”

The researchers noted that some participants said that “their parents or family circumstances explicitly forced, or implicitly encouraged detransition.”

Dr. Turban encouraged clinicians to consider how such external factors might “exacerbate internal factors,” such as internalized transphobia, which could lead to a discontinuation of gender-affirming care.

The study received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Program and a York University SSHRC Explore grant. Travis Salway, MD, a coauthor, has received grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Health Research BC, BC SUPPORT Unit Fraser Centre, Simon Fraser University’s Community-Engaged Research Initiative, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council outside the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was been updated on 8/5/22 to include additional information about detransitioning.

Transgender people who medically detransition – those who stop or switch gender-affirming hormone therapy or who undergo a reversal of a surgical reconstruction – report feeling stigmatized by clinicians and receiving inadequate professional support, researchers have found. As a result, such patients often avoid health care at the time they stop undergoing medical interventions, and many consider their overall care to be “suboptimal.”

“Clinicians providing gender-affirming care must be careful to avoid shaming patients who are pursuing hormonal cessation or switching or surgical reversals and instead strive to address current mental and physical health needs,” wrote the authors of the new study, which was published  in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary accompanying the journal article, Jack L. Turban, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, argues that discontinuation of gender-affirming care is rare and is “woefully politicized”.

Dr. Turban wrote, “clinical protocols should be in place to support patients who have dynamic needs surrounding these interventions.” He added that “gender-affirming care should encompass the entirety of an individual’s embodiment goals, even when those goals may have pivoted over time.”

For the study, Kinnon R. MacKinnon, PhD, of York University, Toronto, and colleagues conducted video interviews with 28 Canadian individuals older than 18 years. All identified as “detransitioning, retransitioning, detrans, retrans, reidentifying, [experiencing] a shift in gender identity after initiating transition, or having stopped transition.”

Eighteen (64%) were assigned female sex at birth, and 10 (36%) were assigned male sex at birth. Twenty (71%) were aged 20-29; six were aged 30-39, and two were older than 40. Twenty-one were White. One participant who only socially transitioned was removed from the analysis of medical transitions. About half who medically transitioned did so between the ages of 18 and 24.

Reasons for stopping a medical transition included concerns about physical or mental health, surgical complications, postoperative pain, unsupportive parents or romantic partners, discrimination in the workplace, and difficulty accessing clinical care or gender-affirming surgery.

One participant, who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female, said the transition did not help. The process was “a hot mess,” she said. Because she’d known people who had experienced improvements in mental and physical health as a result of transitioning, especially after initiating hormone therapy, she kept going. But, she said, “the farther I got into transition, the worse my [borderline personality disorder] symptoms and my presentation was.”
 

Lack of clinician support – going ‘cold turkey’

Many individuals reported that they stopped taking hormones “cold turkey,” without the support of a therapist or a clinician, because they did not trust health care providers or had had bad interactions with the medical system.

Most of those who had undergone gender-affirming surgical removal of testes or ovaries in their initial transition said the care they received when they decided to detransition was “bad.” Clinicians were judgmental or had inadequate knowledge about the process, the researchers reported. Some detransitioners said such encounters with clinicians added to their feelings of shame.

One participant who was born female and transitioned to male said she had good relationships with her clinicians and therapist, but she still felt “guilt and shame” about detransitioning back to female. She also worried that those clinicians would view her initial decision as a “mistake” or “through a lens of ‘regret,’ which was inauthentic to her feelings,” the researchers reported.

Another individual who had been assigned female sex at birth said that when she wanted to detransition, she consulted a physician about switching back to estrogen. “She wasn’t very tactful,” the person, who now identifies as female, recalled. “She made comments about how I should have thought about [my initial transition] harder.”

Participants said clinicians lacked sufficient information on detransitioning.

Dr. Turban noted that data are limited on the physiologic and psychological effects of discontinuing exogenous hormone therapy, “because it is such a rare occurrence.” He acknowledged that “more research is needed on the effects of discontinuation so that clinicians can better educate patients.”

The researchers found that most who sought to detransition consulted online forums and networks. The r/detrans discussion group on Reddit, for instance, now has 36,400 members.

Some reported regret that they had transitioned, while others – especially those who identify now as nonbinary or gender-fluid – said they were happy with their initial choice.

Eighteen of the 27 had no regrets and/or had positive feelings about the gender-affirming medications or procedures they had received in the past. Six (22%) had regret, and three were ambivalent. The rate of regret in the relatively small sample is higher than that observed in several other studies. Trans advocates also point out that detransitioning does not necessarily equate with regret.

When asked whether she regretted having undergone a double mastectomy, an individual who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female said, “Some days I do, some days I don’t.” She also said she is not considering breast augmentation. “I’m just going to leave myself alone,” she said, adding that “it’s part of my journey.”

A participant who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as a cisgender woman said that she is mostly regarded by others as a trans person now, although she does not identify that way. But she said taking testosterone in the past was the right decision. “At the time, that was absolutely what I knew I had to do,” she said. “I’m actually not upset about any of the permanent changes it had on my body.”

The researchers noted that some participants said that “their parents or family circumstances explicitly forced, or implicitly encouraged detransition.”

Dr. Turban encouraged clinicians to consider how such external factors might “exacerbate internal factors,” such as internalized transphobia, which could lead to a discontinuation of gender-affirming care.

The study received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Program and a York University SSHRC Explore grant. Travis Salway, MD, a coauthor, has received grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Health Research BC, BC SUPPORT Unit Fraser Centre, Simon Fraser University’s Community-Engaged Research Initiative, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council outside the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was been updated on 8/5/22 to include additional information about detransitioning.

Transgender people who medically detransition – those who stop or switch gender-affirming hormone therapy or who undergo a reversal of a surgical reconstruction – report feeling stigmatized by clinicians and receiving inadequate professional support, researchers have found. As a result, such patients often avoid health care at the time they stop undergoing medical interventions, and many consider their overall care to be “suboptimal.”

“Clinicians providing gender-affirming care must be careful to avoid shaming patients who are pursuing hormonal cessation or switching or surgical reversals and instead strive to address current mental and physical health needs,” wrote the authors of the new study, which was published  in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary accompanying the journal article, Jack L. Turban, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, argues that discontinuation of gender-affirming care is rare and is “woefully politicized”.

Dr. Turban wrote, “clinical protocols should be in place to support patients who have dynamic needs surrounding these interventions.” He added that “gender-affirming care should encompass the entirety of an individual’s embodiment goals, even when those goals may have pivoted over time.”

For the study, Kinnon R. MacKinnon, PhD, of York University, Toronto, and colleagues conducted video interviews with 28 Canadian individuals older than 18 years. All identified as “detransitioning, retransitioning, detrans, retrans, reidentifying, [experiencing] a shift in gender identity after initiating transition, or having stopped transition.”

Eighteen (64%) were assigned female sex at birth, and 10 (36%) were assigned male sex at birth. Twenty (71%) were aged 20-29; six were aged 30-39, and two were older than 40. Twenty-one were White. One participant who only socially transitioned was removed from the analysis of medical transitions. About half who medically transitioned did so between the ages of 18 and 24.

Reasons for stopping a medical transition included concerns about physical or mental health, surgical complications, postoperative pain, unsupportive parents or romantic partners, discrimination in the workplace, and difficulty accessing clinical care or gender-affirming surgery.

One participant, who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female, said the transition did not help. The process was “a hot mess,” she said. Because she’d known people who had experienced improvements in mental and physical health as a result of transitioning, especially after initiating hormone therapy, she kept going. But, she said, “the farther I got into transition, the worse my [borderline personality disorder] symptoms and my presentation was.”
 

Lack of clinician support – going ‘cold turkey’

Many individuals reported that they stopped taking hormones “cold turkey,” without the support of a therapist or a clinician, because they did not trust health care providers or had had bad interactions with the medical system.

Most of those who had undergone gender-affirming surgical removal of testes or ovaries in their initial transition said the care they received when they decided to detransition was “bad.” Clinicians were judgmental or had inadequate knowledge about the process, the researchers reported. Some detransitioners said such encounters with clinicians added to their feelings of shame.

One participant who was born female and transitioned to male said she had good relationships with her clinicians and therapist, but she still felt “guilt and shame” about detransitioning back to female. She also worried that those clinicians would view her initial decision as a “mistake” or “through a lens of ‘regret,’ which was inauthentic to her feelings,” the researchers reported.

Another individual who had been assigned female sex at birth said that when she wanted to detransition, she consulted a physician about switching back to estrogen. “She wasn’t very tactful,” the person, who now identifies as female, recalled. “She made comments about how I should have thought about [my initial transition] harder.”

Participants said clinicians lacked sufficient information on detransitioning.

Dr. Turban noted that data are limited on the physiologic and psychological effects of discontinuing exogenous hormone therapy, “because it is such a rare occurrence.” He acknowledged that “more research is needed on the effects of discontinuation so that clinicians can better educate patients.”

The researchers found that most who sought to detransition consulted online forums and networks. The r/detrans discussion group on Reddit, for instance, now has 36,400 members.

Some reported regret that they had transitioned, while others – especially those who identify now as nonbinary or gender-fluid – said they were happy with their initial choice.

Eighteen of the 27 had no regrets and/or had positive feelings about the gender-affirming medications or procedures they had received in the past. Six (22%) had regret, and three were ambivalent. The rate of regret in the relatively small sample is higher than that observed in several other studies. Trans advocates also point out that detransitioning does not necessarily equate with regret.

When asked whether she regretted having undergone a double mastectomy, an individual who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female said, “Some days I do, some days I don’t.” She also said she is not considering breast augmentation. “I’m just going to leave myself alone,” she said, adding that “it’s part of my journey.”

A participant who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as a cisgender woman said that she is mostly regarded by others as a trans person now, although she does not identify that way. But she said taking testosterone in the past was the right decision. “At the time, that was absolutely what I knew I had to do,” she said. “I’m actually not upset about any of the permanent changes it had on my body.”

The researchers noted that some participants said that “their parents or family circumstances explicitly forced, or implicitly encouraged detransition.”

Dr. Turban encouraged clinicians to consider how such external factors might “exacerbate internal factors,” such as internalized transphobia, which could lead to a discontinuation of gender-affirming care.

The study received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Program and a York University SSHRC Explore grant. Travis Salway, MD, a coauthor, has received grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Health Research BC, BC SUPPORT Unit Fraser Centre, Simon Fraser University’s Community-Engaged Research Initiative, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council outside the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was been updated on 8/5/22 to include additional information about detransitioning.