Transgender Health

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists has a negative effect on bone mass in transgender youth, according to data from 172 individuals.

The onset of puberty and pubertal hormones contributes to the development of bone mass and body composition in adolescence, wrote Behdad Navabi, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Canada. Although the safety and efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) has been described in short-term studies of youth with gender dysphoria, concerns persist about suppression of bone mass accrual from extended use of GnRHas in this population, they noted.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 172 youth younger than 18 years of age who were treated with GNRHa and underwent at least one baseline dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (DXA) measurement between January 2006 and April 2017 at a single center. The standard treatment protocol started with three doses of 7.5 mg leuprolide acetate, given intramuscularly every 4 weeks, followed by 11.25 mg intramuscularly every 12 weeks after puberty suppression was confirmed both clinically and biochemically. Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measurement z scores were based on birth-assigned sex, age, and ethnicity, and assessed at baseline and every 12 months. In addition, volumetric bone mineral density was calculated as bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) at the lower spine, and the z score based on age-matched, birth-assigned gender BMAD.

Overall, 55.2% of the youth were vitamin D deficient or insufficient at baseline, but 87.3% were sufficient by the time of a third follow-up visit after treatment with 1,000-2,000 IU of vitamin D daily; no cases of vitamin D toxicity were reported.

At baseline, transgender females had lower z scores for the LS aBMD and BMAD compared to transgender males, reflecting a difference seen in previous studies of transgender youth and adult females, the researchers noted.

The researchers analyzed pre- and posttreatment DXA data in a subgroup of 36 transgender females and 80 transgender males to identify any changes associated with GnRHa. The average time between the DXA scans was 407 days. In this population, aBMD z scores at the lower lumbar spine (LS), left total hip (LTH), and total body less head (TBLH) decreased significantly from baseline in transgender males and females.

Among transgender males, LS bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) z scores also decreased significantly from baseline, but no such change occurred among transgender females. The most significant decrease in z scores occurred in the LS aBMD and BMAD of transgender males, with changes that reflect findings from previous studies and may be explained by decreased estrogen, the researchers wrote.

In terms of body composition, no significant changes occurred in body mass index z score from baseline to follow-up in transgender males or females, the researchers noted, and changes in both gynoid and android fat percentages were consistent with the individuals’ affirmed genders. No vertebral fractures were detected.

However, GnRHa was significantly associated with a decrease in total body fat percentage and a decrease in lean body mass (LBM) in transgender females.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of consistent baseline physical activity records, and limited analysis at follow-up of the possible role of physical activity in bone health and body composition, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the relatively large study population with baseline assessments, and by the pre- and posttreatment analysis, they added.

“Evidence on GnRHa-associated changes in body composition and BMD will help health care professionals involved in the care of youth with GD [gender dysphoria] to counsel appropriately and optimize their bone health,” the researchers said. “Given the absence of vertebral fractures detected in those with significant decreases in their LS z scores, the significance of BMD effects of GnRHa in transgender youth needs further study, as well as whether future spine radiographs are needed on the basis of BMD trajectory,” they concluded.
 

Balance bone health concerns with potential benefits

The effect of estrogen and testosterone on bone geometry in puberty varies, and the increase in the use of GnRHa as part of a multidisciplinary gender transition plan makes research on the skeletal impact of this therapy in transgender youth a top priority, Laura K. Bachrach, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and Catherine M. Gordon of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The decrease in areal bone mineral density and in bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) z scores in the current study is not unexpected, but the key question is how much bone density recovers once the suppression therapy ends and transgender sex steroid use begins, they said. “Follow-up studies of young adults treated with GnRHa for precocious puberty in childhood are reassuring,” they wrote. “It is premature, however, to extrapolate from these findings to transgender youth,” because the impact of gender-affirming sex steroid therapy on the skeleton at older ages and stages of maturity are unclear, they emphasized.

In the absence of definitive answers, the editorial authors advised clinicians treating youth with gender dysphoria to provide a balanced view of the risks and benefits of hormone therapy, and encourage adequate intake of dietary vitamin D and calcium, along with weight-bearing physical activity, to promote general bone health. “Transgender teenagers and their parents should be reassured that some recovery from decreases in aBMD during pubertal suppression with GnRHa is likely,” the authors noted. Bone health should be monitored throughout all stages of treatment in transgender youth, but concerns about transient bone loss should not discourage gender transition therapy, they emphasized. “In this patient group, providing a pause in pubertal development offers a life-changing and, for some, a life-saving intervention,” they concluded.
 

Comparison to cisgender controls would add value

“This study is important because one of the major side effects of GnRH agonists is decreased bone density, especially the longer that patients are on them,” M. Brett Cooper, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, said in an interview. The findings add to existing data to underscore the importance of screening for low bone density and low vitamin D levels, Dr. Cooper added.

Dr. Cooper said that he was not surprised by the study findings. “I think that this study supported what clinicians already knew, which is that GnRH agonists do potentially cause a decline in bone mineral density and thus, you need to support these patients as best you can with calcium, vitamin D, and weight-bearing exercise,” he noted.

Dr. Cooper emphasized two main take-home points from the study. “First, clinicians who prescribe GnRH agonists need to ensure that they are checking bone density and vitamin D measurements, and then optimizing these appropriately,” he said. “Second, when a bone density is found to be low or a vitamin level is low, clinicians need to ensure that they are monitored and treated appropriately.” Clinicians need to use these data when deciding when to start gender-affirming hormones so their patients have the best chance to recover bone density, he added.

“I think one confounding factor on this study is the ranges they used for vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Cooper noted. “This study was done in Canada, and the scale used was in nmol/L, while most labs in the U.S. use ng/mL,” he said. “Most pediatric and adolescent societies in the United States use < 20 ng/mL as an indicator of vitamin D deficient and between 20 and 29 ng/mL as insufficient,” he explained, citing the position statement on recommended vitamin D intake for adolescents published by The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. In this study, the results converted to < 12 ng/mL as deficient and between 12 and 20 ng/mL as insufficient, respectively, on the U.S. scale, said Dr. Cooper.

“Therefore, I can see that there are cases where someone may have been labeled vitamin D insufficient in this study using their range, whereas in the U.S. these patients would be labeled as vitamin D deficient and treated with higher-dose supplementation,” he said. In addition, individuals with levels between 20 ng/mL and 29 ng/mL in the U.S. would still be treated with vitamin D supplementation, “whereas in their study those individuals would have been labeled as normal,” he noted.

As for future research, it would be useful to study whether bone mass in transgender young people differs from age- and gender-matched controls who are not gender diverse (cisgender), Dr. Cooper added. “It may be possible that the youth in this study are not different from their peers and maybe the GnRH agonist is not the culprit,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Cooper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists has a negative effect on bone mass in transgender youth, according to data from 172 individuals.

The onset of puberty and pubertal hormones contributes to the development of bone mass and body composition in adolescence, wrote Behdad Navabi, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Canada. Although the safety and efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) has been described in short-term studies of youth with gender dysphoria, concerns persist about suppression of bone mass accrual from extended use of GnRHas in this population, they noted.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 172 youth younger than 18 years of age who were treated with GNRHa and underwent at least one baseline dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (DXA) measurement between January 2006 and April 2017 at a single center. The standard treatment protocol started with three doses of 7.5 mg leuprolide acetate, given intramuscularly every 4 weeks, followed by 11.25 mg intramuscularly every 12 weeks after puberty suppression was confirmed both clinically and biochemically. Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measurement z scores were based on birth-assigned sex, age, and ethnicity, and assessed at baseline and every 12 months. In addition, volumetric bone mineral density was calculated as bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) at the lower spine, and the z score based on age-matched, birth-assigned gender BMAD.

Overall, 55.2% of the youth were vitamin D deficient or insufficient at baseline, but 87.3% were sufficient by the time of a third follow-up visit after treatment with 1,000-2,000 IU of vitamin D daily; no cases of vitamin D toxicity were reported.

At baseline, transgender females had lower z scores for the LS aBMD and BMAD compared to transgender males, reflecting a difference seen in previous studies of transgender youth and adult females, the researchers noted.

The researchers analyzed pre- and posttreatment DXA data in a subgroup of 36 transgender females and 80 transgender males to identify any changes associated with GnRHa. The average time between the DXA scans was 407 days. In this population, aBMD z scores at the lower lumbar spine (LS), left total hip (LTH), and total body less head (TBLH) decreased significantly from baseline in transgender males and females.

Among transgender males, LS bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) z scores also decreased significantly from baseline, but no such change occurred among transgender females. The most significant decrease in z scores occurred in the LS aBMD and BMAD of transgender males, with changes that reflect findings from previous studies and may be explained by decreased estrogen, the researchers wrote.

In terms of body composition, no significant changes occurred in body mass index z score from baseline to follow-up in transgender males or females, the researchers noted, and changes in both gynoid and android fat percentages were consistent with the individuals’ affirmed genders. No vertebral fractures were detected.

However, GnRHa was significantly associated with a decrease in total body fat percentage and a decrease in lean body mass (LBM) in transgender females.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of consistent baseline physical activity records, and limited analysis at follow-up of the possible role of physical activity in bone health and body composition, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the relatively large study population with baseline assessments, and by the pre- and posttreatment analysis, they added.

“Evidence on GnRHa-associated changes in body composition and BMD will help health care professionals involved in the care of youth with GD [gender dysphoria] to counsel appropriately and optimize their bone health,” the researchers said. “Given the absence of vertebral fractures detected in those with significant decreases in their LS z scores, the significance of BMD effects of GnRHa in transgender youth needs further study, as well as whether future spine radiographs are needed on the basis of BMD trajectory,” they concluded.
 

Balance bone health concerns with potential benefits

The effect of estrogen and testosterone on bone geometry in puberty varies, and the increase in the use of GnRHa as part of a multidisciplinary gender transition plan makes research on the skeletal impact of this therapy in transgender youth a top priority, Laura K. Bachrach, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and Catherine M. Gordon of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The decrease in areal bone mineral density and in bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) z scores in the current study is not unexpected, but the key question is how much bone density recovers once the suppression therapy ends and transgender sex steroid use begins, they said. “Follow-up studies of young adults treated with GnRHa for precocious puberty in childhood are reassuring,” they wrote. “It is premature, however, to extrapolate from these findings to transgender youth,” because the impact of gender-affirming sex steroid therapy on the skeleton at older ages and stages of maturity are unclear, they emphasized.

In the absence of definitive answers, the editorial authors advised clinicians treating youth with gender dysphoria to provide a balanced view of the risks and benefits of hormone therapy, and encourage adequate intake of dietary vitamin D and calcium, along with weight-bearing physical activity, to promote general bone health. “Transgender teenagers and their parents should be reassured that some recovery from decreases in aBMD during pubertal suppression with GnRHa is likely,” the authors noted. Bone health should be monitored throughout all stages of treatment in transgender youth, but concerns about transient bone loss should not discourage gender transition therapy, they emphasized. “In this patient group, providing a pause in pubertal development offers a life-changing and, for some, a life-saving intervention,” they concluded.
 

Comparison to cisgender controls would add value

“This study is important because one of the major side effects of GnRH agonists is decreased bone density, especially the longer that patients are on them,” M. Brett Cooper, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, said in an interview. The findings add to existing data to underscore the importance of screening for low bone density and low vitamin D levels, Dr. Cooper added.

Dr. Cooper said that he was not surprised by the study findings. “I think that this study supported what clinicians already knew, which is that GnRH agonists do potentially cause a decline in bone mineral density and thus, you need to support these patients as best you can with calcium, vitamin D, and weight-bearing exercise,” he noted.

Dr. Cooper emphasized two main take-home points from the study. “First, clinicians who prescribe GnRH agonists need to ensure that they are checking bone density and vitamin D measurements, and then optimizing these appropriately,” he said. “Second, when a bone density is found to be low or a vitamin level is low, clinicians need to ensure that they are monitored and treated appropriately.” Clinicians need to use these data when deciding when to start gender-affirming hormones so their patients have the best chance to recover bone density, he added.

“I think one confounding factor on this study is the ranges they used for vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Cooper noted. “This study was done in Canada, and the scale used was in nmol/L, while most labs in the U.S. use ng/mL,” he said. “Most pediatric and adolescent societies in the United States use < 20 ng/mL as an indicator of vitamin D deficient and between 20 and 29 ng/mL as insufficient,” he explained, citing the position statement on recommended vitamin D intake for adolescents published by The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. In this study, the results converted to < 12 ng/mL as deficient and between 12 and 20 ng/mL as insufficient, respectively, on the U.S. scale, said Dr. Cooper.

“Therefore, I can see that there are cases where someone may have been labeled vitamin D insufficient in this study using their range, whereas in the U.S. these patients would be labeled as vitamin D deficient and treated with higher-dose supplementation,” he said. In addition, individuals with levels between 20 ng/mL and 29 ng/mL in the U.S. would still be treated with vitamin D supplementation, “whereas in their study those individuals would have been labeled as normal,” he noted.

As for future research, it would be useful to study whether bone mass in transgender young people differs from age- and gender-matched controls who are not gender diverse (cisgender), Dr. Cooper added. “It may be possible that the youth in this study are not different from their peers and maybe the GnRH agonist is not the culprit,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Cooper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists has a negative effect on bone mass in transgender youth, according to data from 172 individuals.

The onset of puberty and pubertal hormones contributes to the development of bone mass and body composition in adolescence, wrote Behdad Navabi, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Canada. Although the safety and efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) has been described in short-term studies of youth with gender dysphoria, concerns persist about suppression of bone mass accrual from extended use of GnRHas in this population, they noted.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 172 youth younger than 18 years of age who were treated with GNRHa and underwent at least one baseline dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (DXA) measurement between January 2006 and April 2017 at a single center. The standard treatment protocol started with three doses of 7.5 mg leuprolide acetate, given intramuscularly every 4 weeks, followed by 11.25 mg intramuscularly every 12 weeks after puberty suppression was confirmed both clinically and biochemically. Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) measurement z scores were based on birth-assigned sex, age, and ethnicity, and assessed at baseline and every 12 months. In addition, volumetric bone mineral density was calculated as bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) at the lower spine, and the z score based on age-matched, birth-assigned gender BMAD.

Overall, 55.2% of the youth were vitamin D deficient or insufficient at baseline, but 87.3% were sufficient by the time of a third follow-up visit after treatment with 1,000-2,000 IU of vitamin D daily; no cases of vitamin D toxicity were reported.

At baseline, transgender females had lower z scores for the LS aBMD and BMAD compared to transgender males, reflecting a difference seen in previous studies of transgender youth and adult females, the researchers noted.

The researchers analyzed pre- and posttreatment DXA data in a subgroup of 36 transgender females and 80 transgender males to identify any changes associated with GnRHa. The average time between the DXA scans was 407 days. In this population, aBMD z scores at the lower lumbar spine (LS), left total hip (LTH), and total body less head (TBLH) decreased significantly from baseline in transgender males and females.

Among transgender males, LS bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) z scores also decreased significantly from baseline, but no such change occurred among transgender females. The most significant decrease in z scores occurred in the LS aBMD and BMAD of transgender males, with changes that reflect findings from previous studies and may be explained by decreased estrogen, the researchers wrote.

In terms of body composition, no significant changes occurred in body mass index z score from baseline to follow-up in transgender males or females, the researchers noted, and changes in both gynoid and android fat percentages were consistent with the individuals’ affirmed genders. No vertebral fractures were detected.

However, GnRHa was significantly associated with a decrease in total body fat percentage and a decrease in lean body mass (LBM) in transgender females.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of consistent baseline physical activity records, and limited analysis at follow-up of the possible role of physical activity in bone health and body composition, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the relatively large study population with baseline assessments, and by the pre- and posttreatment analysis, they added.

“Evidence on GnRHa-associated changes in body composition and BMD will help health care professionals involved in the care of youth with GD [gender dysphoria] to counsel appropriately and optimize their bone health,” the researchers said. “Given the absence of vertebral fractures detected in those with significant decreases in their LS z scores, the significance of BMD effects of GnRHa in transgender youth needs further study, as well as whether future spine radiographs are needed on the basis of BMD trajectory,” they concluded.
 

Balance bone health concerns with potential benefits

The effect of estrogen and testosterone on bone geometry in puberty varies, and the increase in the use of GnRHa as part of a multidisciplinary gender transition plan makes research on the skeletal impact of this therapy in transgender youth a top priority, Laura K. Bachrach, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and Catherine M. Gordon of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The decrease in areal bone mineral density and in bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) z scores in the current study is not unexpected, but the key question is how much bone density recovers once the suppression therapy ends and transgender sex steroid use begins, they said. “Follow-up studies of young adults treated with GnRHa for precocious puberty in childhood are reassuring,” they wrote. “It is premature, however, to extrapolate from these findings to transgender youth,” because the impact of gender-affirming sex steroid therapy on the skeleton at older ages and stages of maturity are unclear, they emphasized.

In the absence of definitive answers, the editorial authors advised clinicians treating youth with gender dysphoria to provide a balanced view of the risks and benefits of hormone therapy, and encourage adequate intake of dietary vitamin D and calcium, along with weight-bearing physical activity, to promote general bone health. “Transgender teenagers and their parents should be reassured that some recovery from decreases in aBMD during pubertal suppression with GnRHa is likely,” the authors noted. Bone health should be monitored throughout all stages of treatment in transgender youth, but concerns about transient bone loss should not discourage gender transition therapy, they emphasized. “In this patient group, providing a pause in pubertal development offers a life-changing and, for some, a life-saving intervention,” they concluded.
 

Comparison to cisgender controls would add value

“This study is important because one of the major side effects of GnRH agonists is decreased bone density, especially the longer that patients are on them,” M. Brett Cooper, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, said in an interview. The findings add to existing data to underscore the importance of screening for low bone density and low vitamin D levels, Dr. Cooper added.

Dr. Cooper said that he was not surprised by the study findings. “I think that this study supported what clinicians already knew, which is that GnRH agonists do potentially cause a decline in bone mineral density and thus, you need to support these patients as best you can with calcium, vitamin D, and weight-bearing exercise,” he noted.

Dr. Cooper emphasized two main take-home points from the study. “First, clinicians who prescribe GnRH agonists need to ensure that they are checking bone density and vitamin D measurements, and then optimizing these appropriately,” he said. “Second, when a bone density is found to be low or a vitamin level is low, clinicians need to ensure that they are monitored and treated appropriately.” Clinicians need to use these data when deciding when to start gender-affirming hormones so their patients have the best chance to recover bone density, he added.

“I think one confounding factor on this study is the ranges they used for vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Cooper noted. “This study was done in Canada, and the scale used was in nmol/L, while most labs in the U.S. use ng/mL,” he said. “Most pediatric and adolescent societies in the United States use < 20 ng/mL as an indicator of vitamin D deficient and between 20 and 29 ng/mL as insufficient,” he explained, citing the position statement on recommended vitamin D intake for adolescents published by The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. In this study, the results converted to < 12 ng/mL as deficient and between 12 and 20 ng/mL as insufficient, respectively, on the U.S. scale, said Dr. Cooper.

“Therefore, I can see that there are cases where someone may have been labeled vitamin D insufficient in this study using their range, whereas in the U.S. these patients would be labeled as vitamin D deficient and treated with higher-dose supplementation,” he said. In addition, individuals with levels between 20 ng/mL and 29 ng/mL in the U.S. would still be treated with vitamin D supplementation, “whereas in their study those individuals would have been labeled as normal,” he noted.

As for future research, it would be useful to study whether bone mass in transgender young people differs from age- and gender-matched controls who are not gender diverse (cisgender), Dr. Cooper added. “It may be possible that the youth in this study are not different from their peers and maybe the GnRH agonist is not the culprit,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Cooper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Mortality is consistently twice as high in transgender people receiving hormone treatment, compared with cisgender individuals in the general population and has not decreased over time, results of a 5 decades–long study from the Netherlands indicate.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

Particularly concerning is that trans women (male to female) had a mortality risk nearly double that of cis men (born and remain male) in the general Dutch population (standardized mortality ratio, 1.8), while it was nearly triple that of cis women (SMR, 2.8).

Compared with cisgender women, transgender women were more than twice as likely to die from heart disease, three times more likely to die from lung cancer, and almost nine times more likely to die from infection. HIV-related disease mortality risk was nearly 50 times higher for trans women than cis women, and the risk of suicide was almost seven times greater.  

Suicide and other nonnatural causes of death were more common in trans men, compared with cis women.

The report, by Christel J.M. de Blok, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center and colleagues, was published online Sept. 2 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The study included trans men who received testosterone to transition from female to male and trans women who received estrogen plus an antiandrogen to transition from male to female.
 

Is gender-affirming hormone therapy associated with increased mortality?

Senior author Martin den Heijer, MD, also of Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “The findings of our large, nationwide study highlight a substantially increased mortality risk among transgender people that has persisted for decades.”

But he pointed out that, overall, the data do not appear to suggest the premature deaths were related to gender-affirming hormone treatment.

However, he conceded that more work is needed on this aspect of care. “There is insufficient evidence at present to determine long-term safety of [gender-affirming hormone treatment]. More research is needed to fully establish whether it in any way affects mortality risk for transgender people,” said Dr. den Heijer.

Endocrinologist Will Malone, MD, of Twin Falls, Idaho, told this news organization, “The study confirms, like others before it, that individuals taking cross-sex hormones are more likely to die prematurely from a number of causes.”

“While the authors speculate that this higher mortality rate is not connected to cross-sex hormones, the study was not designed to be able to make such a claim,” he said, pointing to limited follow-up times. 

In an accompanying commentary, Vin Tangpricha, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist from Emory University, Atlanta, noted: “Transgender men do not appear to have as significantly increased comorbidity following receipt of gender-affirming hormone therapy when compared with transgender women.”

Dr. Tangpricha added future studies should examine which factors – hormone regimen, hormone concentrations, access to health care, or other biological factors – explain the higher increased risk of morbidity and mortality observed in trans women as opposed to trans men.

However, Dr. de Blok and colleagues note that, as there were relatively few deaths among transgender men in the cohort, analysis on cause of death in this group is limited.

Transgender individuals more likely to die younger

For their study, Dutch researchers retrospectively examined data from 4,568 transgender people attending their clinic (2,927 transgender women and 1,641 transgender men) treated in 1972-2018. People were excluded if they started treatment before the age of 17 or if they had received puberty-blocking drugs.

Data on age at start of hormone treatment, type of treatment, smoking habits, medical history, and last date of follow-up were gathered from medical records. Where possible, SMRs were determined for deaths among trans men and trans women, compared with rates for the adult Dutch general population.

Median age at the start of cross-sex hormone treatment was 30 years in transgender women and 23 years in transgender men. But the median follow-up time was only 11 years in transgender women and 5 years in transgender men.

A total of 317 (10.8%) trans women died, and 44 (2.7%) trans men died. The findings were higher than expected, compared with the general population of cisgender women (SMR, 1.8) but not cisgender men (SMR 1.2).

Mortality risk did increase more in transgender people who started gender-affirming hormone treatment in the past 2 decades compared with earlier, a fact that Dr. de Blok said was surprising.

Trans men, for example, compared with cis women, had an SMR of 2.1-2.4 in 2000-2018 (compared with 1.8 overall).

“This may be due to changes in clinical practice. ... In the past, health care providers were reluctant to provide hormone treatment to people with a history of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease. However, because of the many benefits of enabling people to access hormone therapy, nowadays this rarely results in treatment being denied,” Dr. de Blok noted.
 

More research needed, especially in trans-identifying youth

Dr. Malone remarked that previous studies have shown associations between taking cross-sex hormones and elevated mortality, while also “not designed to detect causality,” have “generally accepted that natal males who take estrogen have estrogen-related increases in the rates of heart disease, stroke, and deep venous thrombosis.” 

He added that the risks of testosterone use in natal females were less well established, “but testosterone is also felt to increase their risk of heart disease.” 

He stressed the limited follow-up times in the study by Dr. de Blok and colleagues.

This “strongly suggests that the rate of elevated mortality far exceeds the doubling measured by the study, especially for natal females.”

Dr. Malone is one of several clinicians and researchers who has formed the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a nonprofit organization that now has at least 100 physician members. SEGM is concerned about the lack of quality evidence for the use of hormonal and surgical interventions as first-line treatment, especially for young people with gender dysphoria.  

Dr. Tangpricha also highlighted that the findings do not apply to transgender people who began treatment before age 17 years or those who had taken puberty blockers before gender-affirming hormone treatment.

There are no long-term data on transgender individuals who have received gender-affirming hormone therapies close to the time of puberty.

These data, such as those from the Trans Youth Care study, should be available in the future, he added.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tangpricha has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and served as past president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. He is editor-in-chief of Endocrine Practice and has provided expert testimony for Kirkland and Ellis.

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

Mortality is consistently twice as high in transgender people receiving hormone treatment, compared with cisgender individuals in the general population and has not decreased over time, results of a 5 decades–long study from the Netherlands indicate.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

Particularly concerning is that trans women (male to female) had a mortality risk nearly double that of cis men (born and remain male) in the general Dutch population (standardized mortality ratio, 1.8), while it was nearly triple that of cis women (SMR, 2.8).

Compared with cisgender women, transgender women were more than twice as likely to die from heart disease, three times more likely to die from lung cancer, and almost nine times more likely to die from infection. HIV-related disease mortality risk was nearly 50 times higher for trans women than cis women, and the risk of suicide was almost seven times greater.  

Suicide and other nonnatural causes of death were more common in trans men, compared with cis women.

The report, by Christel J.M. de Blok, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center and colleagues, was published online Sept. 2 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The study included trans men who received testosterone to transition from female to male and trans women who received estrogen plus an antiandrogen to transition from male to female.
 

Is gender-affirming hormone therapy associated with increased mortality?

Senior author Martin den Heijer, MD, also of Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “The findings of our large, nationwide study highlight a substantially increased mortality risk among transgender people that has persisted for decades.”

But he pointed out that, overall, the data do not appear to suggest the premature deaths were related to gender-affirming hormone treatment.

However, he conceded that more work is needed on this aspect of care. “There is insufficient evidence at present to determine long-term safety of [gender-affirming hormone treatment]. More research is needed to fully establish whether it in any way affects mortality risk for transgender people,” said Dr. den Heijer.

Endocrinologist Will Malone, MD, of Twin Falls, Idaho, told this news organization, “The study confirms, like others before it, that individuals taking cross-sex hormones are more likely to die prematurely from a number of causes.”

“While the authors speculate that this higher mortality rate is not connected to cross-sex hormones, the study was not designed to be able to make such a claim,” he said, pointing to limited follow-up times. 

In an accompanying commentary, Vin Tangpricha, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist from Emory University, Atlanta, noted: “Transgender men do not appear to have as significantly increased comorbidity following receipt of gender-affirming hormone therapy when compared with transgender women.”

Dr. Tangpricha added future studies should examine which factors – hormone regimen, hormone concentrations, access to health care, or other biological factors – explain the higher increased risk of morbidity and mortality observed in trans women as opposed to trans men.

However, Dr. de Blok and colleagues note that, as there were relatively few deaths among transgender men in the cohort, analysis on cause of death in this group is limited.

Transgender individuals more likely to die younger

For their study, Dutch researchers retrospectively examined data from 4,568 transgender people attending their clinic (2,927 transgender women and 1,641 transgender men) treated in 1972-2018. People were excluded if they started treatment before the age of 17 or if they had received puberty-blocking drugs.

Data on age at start of hormone treatment, type of treatment, smoking habits, medical history, and last date of follow-up were gathered from medical records. Where possible, SMRs were determined for deaths among trans men and trans women, compared with rates for the adult Dutch general population.

Median age at the start of cross-sex hormone treatment was 30 years in transgender women and 23 years in transgender men. But the median follow-up time was only 11 years in transgender women and 5 years in transgender men.

A total of 317 (10.8%) trans women died, and 44 (2.7%) trans men died. The findings were higher than expected, compared with the general population of cisgender women (SMR, 1.8) but not cisgender men (SMR 1.2).

Mortality risk did increase more in transgender people who started gender-affirming hormone treatment in the past 2 decades compared with earlier, a fact that Dr. de Blok said was surprising.

Trans men, for example, compared with cis women, had an SMR of 2.1-2.4 in 2000-2018 (compared with 1.8 overall).

“This may be due to changes in clinical practice. ... In the past, health care providers were reluctant to provide hormone treatment to people with a history of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease. However, because of the many benefits of enabling people to access hormone therapy, nowadays this rarely results in treatment being denied,” Dr. de Blok noted.
 

More research needed, especially in trans-identifying youth

Dr. Malone remarked that previous studies have shown associations between taking cross-sex hormones and elevated mortality, while also “not designed to detect causality,” have “generally accepted that natal males who take estrogen have estrogen-related increases in the rates of heart disease, stroke, and deep venous thrombosis.” 

He added that the risks of testosterone use in natal females were less well established, “but testosterone is also felt to increase their risk of heart disease.” 

He stressed the limited follow-up times in the study by Dr. de Blok and colleagues.

This “strongly suggests that the rate of elevated mortality far exceeds the doubling measured by the study, especially for natal females.”

Dr. Malone is one of several clinicians and researchers who has formed the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a nonprofit organization that now has at least 100 physician members. SEGM is concerned about the lack of quality evidence for the use of hormonal and surgical interventions as first-line treatment, especially for young people with gender dysphoria.  

Dr. Tangpricha also highlighted that the findings do not apply to transgender people who began treatment before age 17 years or those who had taken puberty blockers before gender-affirming hormone treatment.

There are no long-term data on transgender individuals who have received gender-affirming hormone therapies close to the time of puberty.

These data, such as those from the Trans Youth Care study, should be available in the future, he added.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tangpricha has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and served as past president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. He is editor-in-chief of Endocrine Practice and has provided expert testimony for Kirkland and Ellis.

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

Mortality is consistently twice as high in transgender people receiving hormone treatment, compared with cisgender individuals in the general population and has not decreased over time, results of a 5 decades–long study from the Netherlands indicate.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

Particularly concerning is that trans women (male to female) had a mortality risk nearly double that of cis men (born and remain male) in the general Dutch population (standardized mortality ratio, 1.8), while it was nearly triple that of cis women (SMR, 2.8).

Compared with cisgender women, transgender women were more than twice as likely to die from heart disease, three times more likely to die from lung cancer, and almost nine times more likely to die from infection. HIV-related disease mortality risk was nearly 50 times higher for trans women than cis women, and the risk of suicide was almost seven times greater.  

Suicide and other nonnatural causes of death were more common in trans men, compared with cis women.

The report, by Christel J.M. de Blok, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center and colleagues, was published online Sept. 2 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The study included trans men who received testosterone to transition from female to male and trans women who received estrogen plus an antiandrogen to transition from male to female.
 

Is gender-affirming hormone therapy associated with increased mortality?

Senior author Martin den Heijer, MD, also of Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “The findings of our large, nationwide study highlight a substantially increased mortality risk among transgender people that has persisted for decades.”

But he pointed out that, overall, the data do not appear to suggest the premature deaths were related to gender-affirming hormone treatment.

However, he conceded that more work is needed on this aspect of care. “There is insufficient evidence at present to determine long-term safety of [gender-affirming hormone treatment]. More research is needed to fully establish whether it in any way affects mortality risk for transgender people,” said Dr. den Heijer.

Endocrinologist Will Malone, MD, of Twin Falls, Idaho, told this news organization, “The study confirms, like others before it, that individuals taking cross-sex hormones are more likely to die prematurely from a number of causes.”

“While the authors speculate that this higher mortality rate is not connected to cross-sex hormones, the study was not designed to be able to make such a claim,” he said, pointing to limited follow-up times. 

In an accompanying commentary, Vin Tangpricha, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist from Emory University, Atlanta, noted: “Transgender men do not appear to have as significantly increased comorbidity following receipt of gender-affirming hormone therapy when compared with transgender women.”

Dr. Tangpricha added future studies should examine which factors – hormone regimen, hormone concentrations, access to health care, or other biological factors – explain the higher increased risk of morbidity and mortality observed in trans women as opposed to trans men.

However, Dr. de Blok and colleagues note that, as there were relatively few deaths among transgender men in the cohort, analysis on cause of death in this group is limited.

Transgender individuals more likely to die younger

For their study, Dutch researchers retrospectively examined data from 4,568 transgender people attending their clinic (2,927 transgender women and 1,641 transgender men) treated in 1972-2018. People were excluded if they started treatment before the age of 17 or if they had received puberty-blocking drugs.

Data on age at start of hormone treatment, type of treatment, smoking habits, medical history, and last date of follow-up were gathered from medical records. Where possible, SMRs were determined for deaths among trans men and trans women, compared with rates for the adult Dutch general population.

Median age at the start of cross-sex hormone treatment was 30 years in transgender women and 23 years in transgender men. But the median follow-up time was only 11 years in transgender women and 5 years in transgender men.

A total of 317 (10.8%) trans women died, and 44 (2.7%) trans men died. The findings were higher than expected, compared with the general population of cisgender women (SMR, 1.8) but not cisgender men (SMR 1.2).

Mortality risk did increase more in transgender people who started gender-affirming hormone treatment in the past 2 decades compared with earlier, a fact that Dr. de Blok said was surprising.

Trans men, for example, compared with cis women, had an SMR of 2.1-2.4 in 2000-2018 (compared with 1.8 overall).

“This may be due to changes in clinical practice. ... In the past, health care providers were reluctant to provide hormone treatment to people with a history of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease. However, because of the many benefits of enabling people to access hormone therapy, nowadays this rarely results in treatment being denied,” Dr. de Blok noted.
 

More research needed, especially in trans-identifying youth

Dr. Malone remarked that previous studies have shown associations between taking cross-sex hormones and elevated mortality, while also “not designed to detect causality,” have “generally accepted that natal males who take estrogen have estrogen-related increases in the rates of heart disease, stroke, and deep venous thrombosis.” 

He added that the risks of testosterone use in natal females were less well established, “but testosterone is also felt to increase their risk of heart disease.” 

He stressed the limited follow-up times in the study by Dr. de Blok and colleagues.

This “strongly suggests that the rate of elevated mortality far exceeds the doubling measured by the study, especially for natal females.”

Dr. Malone is one of several clinicians and researchers who has formed the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a nonprofit organization that now has at least 100 physician members. SEGM is concerned about the lack of quality evidence for the use of hormonal and surgical interventions as first-line treatment, especially for young people with gender dysphoria.  

Dr. Tangpricha also highlighted that the findings do not apply to transgender people who began treatment before age 17 years or those who had taken puberty blockers before gender-affirming hormone treatment.

There are no long-term data on transgender individuals who have received gender-affirming hormone therapies close to the time of puberty.

These data, such as those from the Trans Youth Care study, should be available in the future, he added.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tangpricha has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and served as past president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. He is editor-in-chief of Endocrine Practice and has provided expert testimony for Kirkland and Ellis.

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

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Clinicians should not blindly accept a person’s self-diagnosis as transgender and desire to medically transition without closer inspection; rather, they should make a distinction between ‘acceptance’ and conducting an in-depth, respectful, and collaborative exploration of an individual’s claims about what they believe will best promote their well-being.

These are the conclusions of two experts in ethics and clinical psychology in an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

“It’s not about making life harder for people who wish to transition but about improving care for all people who identify as transgender,” lead author Alessandra Lemma, DClin Psych, visiting professor in the psychoanalysis unit at University College London, said in an interview.

She stressed that the argument is neither for nor against medical transitioning per se.

“It’s an invitation to think about how the medical and mental health care communities can best support anyone considering a transition, whether they eventually pursue that course of action or not. The provision of psychotherapy, irrespective of whether the individual medically transitions or not, makes for a better outcome either way,” said Dr. Lemma, who cares for adolescents as well as adults with gender dysphoria in her private practice in London.  
 

Reflective space has been eroded in gender identity services for the young

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender in Western countries in recent years. This news organization has covered the debate in detail, which has intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

This has “raised concern about how the laudable aims of gender affirmative care may be ushering children and young people too quickly into medical transitioning,” generally defined as treatment with puberty blockers in minors followed by cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, “leading subsequently to a wish to detransition with all the attendant physical and psychological complications,” wrote Dr. Lemma and her coauthor, Julian Savulescu, MD, professor of practical ethics, University of Oxford (England).

While the United Kingdom and other countries such as Finland have tightened regulations regarding the treatment of minors, “these medical interventions continue to be provided in many other countries,” they noted.

Such affirmative care has recently been interpreted by “influential sections of the transgender community” as forbidding “’questioning’ of any kind of the person’s stated gender and what will help them,” the essayists stated.

But Dr. Lemma noted that, for teenagers, this is typically a time to “try on” different identities and ways of presenting oneself to the world.

“All this requires a reflective space during the decision-making process, and this has been eroded in many gender identity services for young people especially, with a massive pressure on services.”

Family issues, trauma, and comorbid conditions can all influence people too, she noted, adding that what may be happening unconsciously may be driving the decision to modify the body.

“I cannot see that it would be harmful to anyone to have the opportunity to really think about what they are doing before making decisions about medical interventions,” she asserted.
 

Decision to transition must be judged to be autonomous

Dr. Lemma noted that even in those instances where medical transitioning, on balance, is the best option, it’s important to acknowledge that the process has a psychological impact.

“What matters is that in facing a major life-changing decision, an individual has the opportunity to understand the developmental and social experiences that drive their experience of gender dysphoria such that the decisions they make about medical transitioning can be said to be taken more autonomously,” she and Dr. Savulescu wrote.

And for those people who opt for full gender reassignment surgery, they are the first to say, “I don’t think I could have got through this as well as I have without psychological support,” Dr. Lemma remarked.

Ultimately, what’s important is to ensure the protection of those individuals whose needs will most likely not be met by medical transitioning, while not making it impossible for those who are suffering to get the care they need in order to transition, she concluded. 

Until 2016, Dr. Lemma was professor of psychological therapies at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Essex University. During that time she worked with adult transgender individuals at the Portman clinic but not at the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock clinic. Currently, she works in private practice with transgender individuals at the Queen Anne Street Practice, London. Dr. Savulescu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians should not blindly accept a person’s self-diagnosis as transgender and desire to medically transition without closer inspection; rather, they should make a distinction between ‘acceptance’ and conducting an in-depth, respectful, and collaborative exploration of an individual’s claims about what they believe will best promote their well-being.

These are the conclusions of two experts in ethics and clinical psychology in an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

“It’s not about making life harder for people who wish to transition but about improving care for all people who identify as transgender,” lead author Alessandra Lemma, DClin Psych, visiting professor in the psychoanalysis unit at University College London, said in an interview.

She stressed that the argument is neither for nor against medical transitioning per se.

“It’s an invitation to think about how the medical and mental health care communities can best support anyone considering a transition, whether they eventually pursue that course of action or not. The provision of psychotherapy, irrespective of whether the individual medically transitions or not, makes for a better outcome either way,” said Dr. Lemma, who cares for adolescents as well as adults with gender dysphoria in her private practice in London.  
 

Reflective space has been eroded in gender identity services for the young

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender in Western countries in recent years. This news organization has covered the debate in detail, which has intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

This has “raised concern about how the laudable aims of gender affirmative care may be ushering children and young people too quickly into medical transitioning,” generally defined as treatment with puberty blockers in minors followed by cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, “leading subsequently to a wish to detransition with all the attendant physical and psychological complications,” wrote Dr. Lemma and her coauthor, Julian Savulescu, MD, professor of practical ethics, University of Oxford (England).

While the United Kingdom and other countries such as Finland have tightened regulations regarding the treatment of minors, “these medical interventions continue to be provided in many other countries,” they noted.

Such affirmative care has recently been interpreted by “influential sections of the transgender community” as forbidding “’questioning’ of any kind of the person’s stated gender and what will help them,” the essayists stated.

But Dr. Lemma noted that, for teenagers, this is typically a time to “try on” different identities and ways of presenting oneself to the world.

“All this requires a reflective space during the decision-making process, and this has been eroded in many gender identity services for young people especially, with a massive pressure on services.”

Family issues, trauma, and comorbid conditions can all influence people too, she noted, adding that what may be happening unconsciously may be driving the decision to modify the body.

“I cannot see that it would be harmful to anyone to have the opportunity to really think about what they are doing before making decisions about medical interventions,” she asserted.
 

Decision to transition must be judged to be autonomous

Dr. Lemma noted that even in those instances where medical transitioning, on balance, is the best option, it’s important to acknowledge that the process has a psychological impact.

“What matters is that in facing a major life-changing decision, an individual has the opportunity to understand the developmental and social experiences that drive their experience of gender dysphoria such that the decisions they make about medical transitioning can be said to be taken more autonomously,” she and Dr. Savulescu wrote.

And for those people who opt for full gender reassignment surgery, they are the first to say, “I don’t think I could have got through this as well as I have without psychological support,” Dr. Lemma remarked.

Ultimately, what’s important is to ensure the protection of those individuals whose needs will most likely not be met by medical transitioning, while not making it impossible for those who are suffering to get the care they need in order to transition, she concluded. 

Until 2016, Dr. Lemma was professor of psychological therapies at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Essex University. During that time she worked with adult transgender individuals at the Portman clinic but not at the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock clinic. Currently, she works in private practice with transgender individuals at the Queen Anne Street Practice, London. Dr. Savulescu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians should not blindly accept a person’s self-diagnosis as transgender and desire to medically transition without closer inspection; rather, they should make a distinction between ‘acceptance’ and conducting an in-depth, respectful, and collaborative exploration of an individual’s claims about what they believe will best promote their well-being.

These are the conclusions of two experts in ethics and clinical psychology in an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

“It’s not about making life harder for people who wish to transition but about improving care for all people who identify as transgender,” lead author Alessandra Lemma, DClin Psych, visiting professor in the psychoanalysis unit at University College London, said in an interview.

She stressed that the argument is neither for nor against medical transitioning per se.

“It’s an invitation to think about how the medical and mental health care communities can best support anyone considering a transition, whether they eventually pursue that course of action or not. The provision of psychotherapy, irrespective of whether the individual medically transitions or not, makes for a better outcome either way,” said Dr. Lemma, who cares for adolescents as well as adults with gender dysphoria in her private practice in London.  
 

Reflective space has been eroded in gender identity services for the young

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender in Western countries in recent years. This news organization has covered the debate in detail, which has intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

This has “raised concern about how the laudable aims of gender affirmative care may be ushering children and young people too quickly into medical transitioning,” generally defined as treatment with puberty blockers in minors followed by cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, “leading subsequently to a wish to detransition with all the attendant physical and psychological complications,” wrote Dr. Lemma and her coauthor, Julian Savulescu, MD, professor of practical ethics, University of Oxford (England).

While the United Kingdom and other countries such as Finland have tightened regulations regarding the treatment of minors, “these medical interventions continue to be provided in many other countries,” they noted.

Such affirmative care has recently been interpreted by “influential sections of the transgender community” as forbidding “’questioning’ of any kind of the person’s stated gender and what will help them,” the essayists stated.

But Dr. Lemma noted that, for teenagers, this is typically a time to “try on” different identities and ways of presenting oneself to the world.

“All this requires a reflective space during the decision-making process, and this has been eroded in many gender identity services for young people especially, with a massive pressure on services.”

Family issues, trauma, and comorbid conditions can all influence people too, she noted, adding that what may be happening unconsciously may be driving the decision to modify the body.

“I cannot see that it would be harmful to anyone to have the opportunity to really think about what they are doing before making decisions about medical interventions,” she asserted.
 

Decision to transition must be judged to be autonomous

Dr. Lemma noted that even in those instances where medical transitioning, on balance, is the best option, it’s important to acknowledge that the process has a psychological impact.

“What matters is that in facing a major life-changing decision, an individual has the opportunity to understand the developmental and social experiences that drive their experience of gender dysphoria such that the decisions they make about medical transitioning can be said to be taken more autonomously,” she and Dr. Savulescu wrote.

And for those people who opt for full gender reassignment surgery, they are the first to say, “I don’t think I could have got through this as well as I have without psychological support,” Dr. Lemma remarked.

Ultimately, what’s important is to ensure the protection of those individuals whose needs will most likely not be met by medical transitioning, while not making it impossible for those who are suffering to get the care they need in order to transition, she concluded. 

Until 2016, Dr. Lemma was professor of psychological therapies at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Essex University. During that time she worked with adult transgender individuals at the Portman clinic but not at the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock clinic. Currently, she works in private practice with transgender individuals at the Queen Anne Street Practice, London. Dr. Savulescu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is at the center of a row with an international group of doctors who question whether hormone treatment is the most appropriate way to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.

After initially accepting the application and payment from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for the organization to have an information booth at the AAP annual meeting in October, the AAP did a U-turn earlier this month and canceled the registration, with no explanation as to why.

“Just days earlier,” says SEGM in a statement on its website, “over 80% of AAP members” had indicated they wanted more discussion on the topic of “addressing alternatives to the use of hormone therapies for gender dysphoric youth.”

“This rejection sends a strong signal that the AAP does not want to see any debate on what constitutes evidence-based care for gender-diverse youth,” they add.

Asked for an explanation as to why it accepted but later rescinded SEGM’s application for a booth, the AAP has given no response to date.

A Wall Street Journal article on the furor, published last week, has clocked up 785 comments to date.  

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender – reporting discomfort with their birth sex – in Western countries, and the debate has been covered in detail, having intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

Although “affirmative” medical care, defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, is supported by the AAP and other medical organizations, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed, given that there are a number of irreversible changes associated with treatment. There is also a growing number of “detransitioners” – mostly young people who transitioned and then changed their minds, and “detransitioned” back to their birth sex.

“Because of the low quality of the available evidence and the marked change in the presentation of gender dysphoria in youth in the last several years (many more adolescents with recently emerging transgender identities and significant mental health comorbidities are presenting for care), what constitutes good health care for this patient group is far from clear,” notes SEGM.

“Quelling the debate will not help America’s pediatricians guide patients and their families based on best available evidence. The politicization of the field of gender medicine must end, if we care about gender-variant youth and their long-term health,” they conclude.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is at the center of a row with an international group of doctors who question whether hormone treatment is the most appropriate way to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.

After initially accepting the application and payment from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for the organization to have an information booth at the AAP annual meeting in October, the AAP did a U-turn earlier this month and canceled the registration, with no explanation as to why.

“Just days earlier,” says SEGM in a statement on its website, “over 80% of AAP members” had indicated they wanted more discussion on the topic of “addressing alternatives to the use of hormone therapies for gender dysphoric youth.”

“This rejection sends a strong signal that the AAP does not want to see any debate on what constitutes evidence-based care for gender-diverse youth,” they add.

Asked for an explanation as to why it accepted but later rescinded SEGM’s application for a booth, the AAP has given no response to date.

A Wall Street Journal article on the furor, published last week, has clocked up 785 comments to date.  

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender – reporting discomfort with their birth sex – in Western countries, and the debate has been covered in detail, having intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

Although “affirmative” medical care, defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, is supported by the AAP and other medical organizations, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed, given that there are a number of irreversible changes associated with treatment. There is also a growing number of “detransitioners” – mostly young people who transitioned and then changed their minds, and “detransitioned” back to their birth sex.

“Because of the low quality of the available evidence and the marked change in the presentation of gender dysphoria in youth in the last several years (many more adolescents with recently emerging transgender identities and significant mental health comorbidities are presenting for care), what constitutes good health care for this patient group is far from clear,” notes SEGM.

“Quelling the debate will not help America’s pediatricians guide patients and their families based on best available evidence. The politicization of the field of gender medicine must end, if we care about gender-variant youth and their long-term health,” they conclude.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is at the center of a row with an international group of doctors who question whether hormone treatment is the most appropriate way to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.

After initially accepting the application and payment from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for the organization to have an information booth at the AAP annual meeting in October, the AAP did a U-turn earlier this month and canceled the registration, with no explanation as to why.

“Just days earlier,” says SEGM in a statement on its website, “over 80% of AAP members” had indicated they wanted more discussion on the topic of “addressing alternatives to the use of hormone therapies for gender dysphoric youth.”

“This rejection sends a strong signal that the AAP does not want to see any debate on what constitutes evidence-based care for gender-diverse youth,” they add.

Asked for an explanation as to why it accepted but later rescinded SEGM’s application for a booth, the AAP has given no response to date.

A Wall Street Journal article on the furor, published last week, has clocked up 785 comments to date.  

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender – reporting discomfort with their birth sex – in Western countries, and the debate has been covered in detail, having intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

Although “affirmative” medical care, defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, is supported by the AAP and other medical organizations, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed, given that there are a number of irreversible changes associated with treatment. There is also a growing number of “detransitioners” – mostly young people who transitioned and then changed their minds, and “detransitioned” back to their birth sex.

“Because of the low quality of the available evidence and the marked change in the presentation of gender dysphoria in youth in the last several years (many more adolescents with recently emerging transgender identities and significant mental health comorbidities are presenting for care), what constitutes good health care for this patient group is far from clear,” notes SEGM.

“Quelling the debate will not help America’s pediatricians guide patients and their families based on best available evidence. The politicization of the field of gender medicine must end, if we care about gender-variant youth and their long-term health,” they conclude.

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

Transgender adults are more likely to experience subjective cognitive decline (SCD) than their cisgender peers, and at an earlier age, new research shows.

Investigators found transgender adults – individuals who identify with a gender different than the one assigned to them at birth – were nearly twice as likely to report subjective cognitive decline and more than twice as likely to report SCD-related functional limitations – such as reduced ability to work, volunteer, or be social – than cisgender adults.

‘Alarming’ finding

SCD is a self-reported experience of worsening memory or thinking and is one of the first clinical manifestations of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD). Yet there is limited research into cognitive impairment among transgender adults.

The researchers examined SCD and associated functional limitations among transgender and cisgender adults older than age 45 years who provided health and health behavior data as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys (2015-2019). 

The sample included 386,529 adults of whom 1,302 identified as transgender and 385,227 as cisgender.

Roughly 17% of transgender adults reported SCD, which is significantly higher than the 10.6% rate for cisgender adults (P < .001).

Compared with cisgender adults reporting SCD, transgender adults reporting SCD were younger (mean age 61.9 vs. 65.2 years, P = .0005), more likely to be in a racial/ethnic minority group (37.3% vs. 19.5%, P < .0001), have a high school degree or less (59.6% vs. 43.4%, P = .0003), be uninsured (17% vs. 5.5%, P = .0007) and have a depressive disorder (58.8% vs. 45.7%, P = .0028).

The fact that transgender people who reported SCD were about 3 years younger than cisgender people who reported SCD is “somewhat alarming and a red flag to ask middle-aged trans adults about their brain health and not just older or elderly trans adults,” said Dr. Cicero.

The study also showed that transgender adults reporting SCD were 2.3 times more likely to report related social and self-care limitations when compared with cisgender adults reporting SCD.

The findings align with a study reported at AAIC 2019, which showed that sexual or gender minorities (SGM) are almost 30% more likely to report subjective cognitive decline compared with the non-SGM population.
 

Cause unclear

“We are not certain what may be causing the elevated subjective cognitive decline rates among transgender adults. We postulate that it may be in part due to anti-transgender stigma and prejudice that expose transgender people to high rates of mistreatment and discrimination where they live, work, learn, seek health care, and age,” Dr. Cicero said.

“More research is needed to identify and target preventive intervention strategies, develop culturally relevant screenings, and shape policies to improve the health and well-being of the transgender population,” he added.

Weighing in on the study, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “researchers have only just started to explore the experiences of dementia within the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community, but this is the first time we are seeing some specific research that’s looking at cognition in transgender individuals and gender nonbinary individuals.”

“We don’t know exactly why transgender and gender nonbinary individuals experience greater rates of subjective cognitive decline, but we do know that they have greater rates of health disparities that are considered risk factors for dementia, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes, tobacco and alcohol use, and obesity,” Dr. Edelmayer said. 

“Alzheimer’s and dementia do not discriminate. Neither can we,” Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.

“The Alzheimer’s Association advocates for more research to better understand the cognitive and emotional needs of transgender and nonbinary individuals so that our nation’s health care providers can offer them culturally sensitive care,” said Dr. Carrillo.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cicero, Dr. Carrillo, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender adults are more likely to experience subjective cognitive decline (SCD) than their cisgender peers, and at an earlier age, new research shows.

Investigators found transgender adults – individuals who identify with a gender different than the one assigned to them at birth – were nearly twice as likely to report subjective cognitive decline and more than twice as likely to report SCD-related functional limitations – such as reduced ability to work, volunteer, or be social – than cisgender adults.

‘Alarming’ finding

SCD is a self-reported experience of worsening memory or thinking and is one of the first clinical manifestations of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD). Yet there is limited research into cognitive impairment among transgender adults.

The researchers examined SCD and associated functional limitations among transgender and cisgender adults older than age 45 years who provided health and health behavior data as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys (2015-2019). 

The sample included 386,529 adults of whom 1,302 identified as transgender and 385,227 as cisgender.

Roughly 17% of transgender adults reported SCD, which is significantly higher than the 10.6% rate for cisgender adults (P < .001).

Compared with cisgender adults reporting SCD, transgender adults reporting SCD were younger (mean age 61.9 vs. 65.2 years, P = .0005), more likely to be in a racial/ethnic minority group (37.3% vs. 19.5%, P < .0001), have a high school degree or less (59.6% vs. 43.4%, P = .0003), be uninsured (17% vs. 5.5%, P = .0007) and have a depressive disorder (58.8% vs. 45.7%, P = .0028).

The fact that transgender people who reported SCD were about 3 years younger than cisgender people who reported SCD is “somewhat alarming and a red flag to ask middle-aged trans adults about their brain health and not just older or elderly trans adults,” said Dr. Cicero.

The study also showed that transgender adults reporting SCD were 2.3 times more likely to report related social and self-care limitations when compared with cisgender adults reporting SCD.

The findings align with a study reported at AAIC 2019, which showed that sexual or gender minorities (SGM) are almost 30% more likely to report subjective cognitive decline compared with the non-SGM population.
 

Cause unclear

“We are not certain what may be causing the elevated subjective cognitive decline rates among transgender adults. We postulate that it may be in part due to anti-transgender stigma and prejudice that expose transgender people to high rates of mistreatment and discrimination where they live, work, learn, seek health care, and age,” Dr. Cicero said.

“More research is needed to identify and target preventive intervention strategies, develop culturally relevant screenings, and shape policies to improve the health and well-being of the transgender population,” he added.

Weighing in on the study, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “researchers have only just started to explore the experiences of dementia within the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community, but this is the first time we are seeing some specific research that’s looking at cognition in transgender individuals and gender nonbinary individuals.”

“We don’t know exactly why transgender and gender nonbinary individuals experience greater rates of subjective cognitive decline, but we do know that they have greater rates of health disparities that are considered risk factors for dementia, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes, tobacco and alcohol use, and obesity,” Dr. Edelmayer said. 

“Alzheimer’s and dementia do not discriminate. Neither can we,” Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.

“The Alzheimer’s Association advocates for more research to better understand the cognitive and emotional needs of transgender and nonbinary individuals so that our nation’s health care providers can offer them culturally sensitive care,” said Dr. Carrillo.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cicero, Dr. Carrillo, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender adults are more likely to experience subjective cognitive decline (SCD) than their cisgender peers, and at an earlier age, new research shows.

Investigators found transgender adults – individuals who identify with a gender different than the one assigned to them at birth – were nearly twice as likely to report subjective cognitive decline and more than twice as likely to report SCD-related functional limitations – such as reduced ability to work, volunteer, or be social – than cisgender adults.

‘Alarming’ finding

SCD is a self-reported experience of worsening memory or thinking and is one of the first clinical manifestations of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD). Yet there is limited research into cognitive impairment among transgender adults.

The researchers examined SCD and associated functional limitations among transgender and cisgender adults older than age 45 years who provided health and health behavior data as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys (2015-2019). 

The sample included 386,529 adults of whom 1,302 identified as transgender and 385,227 as cisgender.

Roughly 17% of transgender adults reported SCD, which is significantly higher than the 10.6% rate for cisgender adults (P < .001).

Compared with cisgender adults reporting SCD, transgender adults reporting SCD were younger (mean age 61.9 vs. 65.2 years, P = .0005), more likely to be in a racial/ethnic minority group (37.3% vs. 19.5%, P < .0001), have a high school degree or less (59.6% vs. 43.4%, P = .0003), be uninsured (17% vs. 5.5%, P = .0007) and have a depressive disorder (58.8% vs. 45.7%, P = .0028).

The fact that transgender people who reported SCD were about 3 years younger than cisgender people who reported SCD is “somewhat alarming and a red flag to ask middle-aged trans adults about their brain health and not just older or elderly trans adults,” said Dr. Cicero.

The study also showed that transgender adults reporting SCD were 2.3 times more likely to report related social and self-care limitations when compared with cisgender adults reporting SCD.

The findings align with a study reported at AAIC 2019, which showed that sexual or gender minorities (SGM) are almost 30% more likely to report subjective cognitive decline compared with the non-SGM population.
 

Cause unclear

“We are not certain what may be causing the elevated subjective cognitive decline rates among transgender adults. We postulate that it may be in part due to anti-transgender stigma and prejudice that expose transgender people to high rates of mistreatment and discrimination where they live, work, learn, seek health care, and age,” Dr. Cicero said.

“More research is needed to identify and target preventive intervention strategies, develop culturally relevant screenings, and shape policies to improve the health and well-being of the transgender population,” he added.

Weighing in on the study, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “researchers have only just started to explore the experiences of dementia within the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community, but this is the first time we are seeing some specific research that’s looking at cognition in transgender individuals and gender nonbinary individuals.”

“We don’t know exactly why transgender and gender nonbinary individuals experience greater rates of subjective cognitive decline, but we do know that they have greater rates of health disparities that are considered risk factors for dementia, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes, tobacco and alcohol use, and obesity,” Dr. Edelmayer said. 

“Alzheimer’s and dementia do not discriminate. Neither can we,” Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.

“The Alzheimer’s Association advocates for more research to better understand the cognitive and emotional needs of transgender and nonbinary individuals so that our nation’s health care providers can offer them culturally sensitive care,” said Dr. Carrillo.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cicero, Dr. Carrillo, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the last several years, the United States has seen a substantial increase in proposed legislation directed toward transgender individuals, particularly youth.¹ One type of this legislation aims to prevent participation of transgender girls on female sports teams. While at first glance these bills may seem like common sense protections, in reality they are based on little evidence and serve to further marginalize an already-vulnerable population.

The majority of the population, and thus the majority of athletes, are cisgender.² According a limited data set from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, only 1.8% of high school students identify as transgender.^3,4 Overall, this is a very small percentage and it is unlikely that all of them, or even a majority, participate in athletics. In fact, many transgender individuals avoid athletics as it worsens their dysphoria. Winners are no more likely to be transgender than cisgender.

While proponents of this legislation say that trans women have an unfair advantage because of elevated testosterone levels (and thus theoretically increased muscle mass), there is no clear relationship between higher testosterone levels in athletes and improved athletic performance.² In fact, there are plenty of sports in which a smaller physique may be beneficial, such as gymnastics. A systematic review showed “no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals ... have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition.”⁵ Furthermore, trans women are not the only women with elevated testosterone levels. Many cisgender women who have polycystic ovary syndrome or a disorder of sexual differentiation can have higher levels of testosterone and theoretically may have higher muscle mass. Who is to decide which team would be most appropriate for them? Is the plan to require a karyotype, other genetic testing, or an invasive physical exam for every young athlete? Even if the concern is with regards to testosterone levels and muscle mass, this ignores that fact that appropriate medical intervention for transgender adolescents will alter these attributes. If a transgender girl began gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists early in puberty, she is unlikely to have increased muscle mass or a higher testosterone level than a cisgender girl. Those trans girls who take estradiol also experience a decrease in muscle mass. Additionally, adolescents grow and develop at different rates – surely there is already significant variability among hormone levels, muscle mass, sexual maturity ratings, and ability among individual athletes, regardless of gender identity? The argument that trans women should be excluded based on a theoretical genetic advantage is reminiscent of the argument that Black athletes should be excluded because of genetic advantage. Just as with cisgender athletes, transgender athletes will naturally vary in ability.⁶

In addition, there are many places and organizations that already have trans-inclusive policies in place for sports, yet we have not seen transgender individuals dominate their peers. In the 8 years since implementation of a trans-inclusive sports policy in California, a trans woman has never dominated a sport.⁷ The same is true for Canada since the institution of their policy 2 years ago. While transgender people can participate in the Olympics, this year marks the first time a trans woman has ever qualified (Laurel Hubbard, New Zealand, women’s weightlifting). The lack of transgender Olympians may be in part because of problematic requirements (such as duration of hormone therapy and surgery requirements) for transgender individuals, which may be so onerous that they are functionally excluded.^2,5

In reality, athletes are improving over time and the performance gap between genders is shrinking. For example, in 1970 Mark Spitz swam the 100-meter freestyle in 51.94 seconds, a time that has now been surpassed by both men and women, such as Sarah Sjöström (women’s world record holder at 51.71 seconds). Athletes’ physical attributes are often less important than their training and dedication to their sport.

More importantly, this discussion raises the philosophical question of the purpose of athletics for youth and young adults. Winning and good performance can – though rarely – lead to college scholarships and professional careers, the biggest benefit of athletics comes from participation. We encourage youth to play sports not to win, but to learn about leadership, dedication, and collegiality, as well as for the health benefits of exercise. Inclusion in sports and other extracurricular activities improves depression, anxiety, and suicide rates. In fact, participation in sports has been associated with improved grades, greater homework completion, higher educational and occupational aspirations, and improved self-esteem.^8-12 Excluding a population that already experiences such drastic marginalization will cause more damage. Values of nondiscrimination and inclusion should be promoted among all student athletes, rather than “other-ism.”

Forcing trans women to compete with men will worsen their dysphoria and further ostracize the most vulnerable, giving credence to those that believe they are not “real women.” Allowing transgender individuals to play on the team consistent with their gender identity is appropriate, not only for scientific reasons but also for humanitarian ones. Such laws are based not on evidence, but on discrimination. Not only do trans women not do better than cisgender women in sports, but such proposed legislation also ignores the normal variability among individuals as well as the intense training and dedication involved in becoming a top athlete. Limiting trans women’s participation in sports does not raise up cisgender women, but rather brings us all down. Please advocate for your patients to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity to promote both their physical and emotional well-being.

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Cooper MB. Pediatric News. 2020 Dec 11, 2020.

2. Turban J. Scientific American. 2021 May 21.

3. Redfield RR et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(8):1-11.

4. Johns MM et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(3):67-71.

5. Jones BA et al. Sports Med (Auckland, New Zealand). 2017;47(4):701-16.

6. Strangio C et al. ACLU News. 2020 Apr 30.

7. Strauss L. USA Today. 2021 Apr 9.

8. Darling N et al. J Leisure Res. 2005;37(1):51-76.

9. Fredricks JA et al. Dev Psych. 2006;42(4):698-713.

10. Marsh HW et al. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2003;25(2):205.

11. Nelson MC et al. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1281-90.

12. Ortega FB et al. Int J Obes. 2008;32(1):1-11.

Over the last several years, the United States has seen a substantial increase in proposed legislation directed toward transgender individuals, particularly youth.¹ One type of this legislation aims to prevent participation of transgender girls on female sports teams. While at first glance these bills may seem like common sense protections, in reality they are based on little evidence and serve to further marginalize an already-vulnerable population.

The majority of the population, and thus the majority of athletes, are cisgender.² According a limited data set from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, only 1.8% of high school students identify as transgender.^3,4 Overall, this is a very small percentage and it is unlikely that all of them, or even a majority, participate in athletics. In fact, many transgender individuals avoid athletics as it worsens their dysphoria. Winners are no more likely to be transgender than cisgender.

While proponents of this legislation say that trans women have an unfair advantage because of elevated testosterone levels (and thus theoretically increased muscle mass), there is no clear relationship between higher testosterone levels in athletes and improved athletic performance.² In fact, there are plenty of sports in which a smaller physique may be beneficial, such as gymnastics. A systematic review showed “no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals ... have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition.”⁵ Furthermore, trans women are not the only women with elevated testosterone levels. Many cisgender women who have polycystic ovary syndrome or a disorder of sexual differentiation can have higher levels of testosterone and theoretically may have higher muscle mass. Who is to decide which team would be most appropriate for them? Is the plan to require a karyotype, other genetic testing, or an invasive physical exam for every young athlete? Even if the concern is with regards to testosterone levels and muscle mass, this ignores that fact that appropriate medical intervention for transgender adolescents will alter these attributes. If a transgender girl began gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists early in puberty, she is unlikely to have increased muscle mass or a higher testosterone level than a cisgender girl. Those trans girls who take estradiol also experience a decrease in muscle mass. Additionally, adolescents grow and develop at different rates – surely there is already significant variability among hormone levels, muscle mass, sexual maturity ratings, and ability among individual athletes, regardless of gender identity? The argument that trans women should be excluded based on a theoretical genetic advantage is reminiscent of the argument that Black athletes should be excluded because of genetic advantage. Just as with cisgender athletes, transgender athletes will naturally vary in ability.⁶

In addition, there are many places and organizations that already have trans-inclusive policies in place for sports, yet we have not seen transgender individuals dominate their peers. In the 8 years since implementation of a trans-inclusive sports policy in California, a trans woman has never dominated a sport.⁷ The same is true for Canada since the institution of their policy 2 years ago. While transgender people can participate in the Olympics, this year marks the first time a trans woman has ever qualified (Laurel Hubbard, New Zealand, women’s weightlifting). The lack of transgender Olympians may be in part because of problematic requirements (such as duration of hormone therapy and surgery requirements) for transgender individuals, which may be so onerous that they are functionally excluded.^2,5

In reality, athletes are improving over time and the performance gap between genders is shrinking. For example, in 1970 Mark Spitz swam the 100-meter freestyle in 51.94 seconds, a time that has now been surpassed by both men and women, such as Sarah Sjöström (women’s world record holder at 51.71 seconds). Athletes’ physical attributes are often less important than their training and dedication to their sport.

More importantly, this discussion raises the philosophical question of the purpose of athletics for youth and young adults. Winning and good performance can – though rarely – lead to college scholarships and professional careers, the biggest benefit of athletics comes from participation. We encourage youth to play sports not to win, but to learn about leadership, dedication, and collegiality, as well as for the health benefits of exercise. Inclusion in sports and other extracurricular activities improves depression, anxiety, and suicide rates. In fact, participation in sports has been associated with improved grades, greater homework completion, higher educational and occupational aspirations, and improved self-esteem.^8-12 Excluding a population that already experiences such drastic marginalization will cause more damage. Values of nondiscrimination and inclusion should be promoted among all student athletes, rather than “other-ism.”

Forcing trans women to compete with men will worsen their dysphoria and further ostracize the most vulnerable, giving credence to those that believe they are not “real women.” Allowing transgender individuals to play on the team consistent with their gender identity is appropriate, not only for scientific reasons but also for humanitarian ones. Such laws are based not on evidence, but on discrimination. Not only do trans women not do better than cisgender women in sports, but such proposed legislation also ignores the normal variability among individuals as well as the intense training and dedication involved in becoming a top athlete. Limiting trans women’s participation in sports does not raise up cisgender women, but rather brings us all down. Please advocate for your patients to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity to promote both their physical and emotional well-being.

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Cooper MB. Pediatric News. 2020 Dec 11, 2020.

2. Turban J. Scientific American. 2021 May 21.

3. Redfield RR et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(8):1-11.

4. Johns MM et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(3):67-71.

5. Jones BA et al. Sports Med (Auckland, New Zealand). 2017;47(4):701-16.

6. Strangio C et al. ACLU News. 2020 Apr 30.

7. Strauss L. USA Today. 2021 Apr 9.

8. Darling N et al. J Leisure Res. 2005;37(1):51-76.

9. Fredricks JA et al. Dev Psych. 2006;42(4):698-713.

10. Marsh HW et al. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2003;25(2):205.

11. Nelson MC et al. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1281-90.

12. Ortega FB et al. Int J Obes. 2008;32(1):1-11.

Over the last several years, the United States has seen a substantial increase in proposed legislation directed toward transgender individuals, particularly youth.¹ One type of this legislation aims to prevent participation of transgender girls on female sports teams. While at first glance these bills may seem like common sense protections, in reality they are based on little evidence and serve to further marginalize an already-vulnerable population.

The majority of the population, and thus the majority of athletes, are cisgender.² According a limited data set from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, only 1.8% of high school students identify as transgender.^3,4 Overall, this is a very small percentage and it is unlikely that all of them, or even a majority, participate in athletics. In fact, many transgender individuals avoid athletics as it worsens their dysphoria. Winners are no more likely to be transgender than cisgender.

While proponents of this legislation say that trans women have an unfair advantage because of elevated testosterone levels (and thus theoretically increased muscle mass), there is no clear relationship between higher testosterone levels in athletes and improved athletic performance.² In fact, there are plenty of sports in which a smaller physique may be beneficial, such as gymnastics. A systematic review showed “no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals ... have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition.”⁵ Furthermore, trans women are not the only women with elevated testosterone levels. Many cisgender women who have polycystic ovary syndrome or a disorder of sexual differentiation can have higher levels of testosterone and theoretically may have higher muscle mass. Who is to decide which team would be most appropriate for them? Is the plan to require a karyotype, other genetic testing, or an invasive physical exam for every young athlete? Even if the concern is with regards to testosterone levels and muscle mass, this ignores that fact that appropriate medical intervention for transgender adolescents will alter these attributes. If a transgender girl began gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists early in puberty, she is unlikely to have increased muscle mass or a higher testosterone level than a cisgender girl. Those trans girls who take estradiol also experience a decrease in muscle mass. Additionally, adolescents grow and develop at different rates – surely there is already significant variability among hormone levels, muscle mass, sexual maturity ratings, and ability among individual athletes, regardless of gender identity? The argument that trans women should be excluded based on a theoretical genetic advantage is reminiscent of the argument that Black athletes should be excluded because of genetic advantage. Just as with cisgender athletes, transgender athletes will naturally vary in ability.⁶

In addition, there are many places and organizations that already have trans-inclusive policies in place for sports, yet we have not seen transgender individuals dominate their peers. In the 8 years since implementation of a trans-inclusive sports policy in California, a trans woman has never dominated a sport.⁷ The same is true for Canada since the institution of their policy 2 years ago. While transgender people can participate in the Olympics, this year marks the first time a trans woman has ever qualified (Laurel Hubbard, New Zealand, women’s weightlifting). The lack of transgender Olympians may be in part because of problematic requirements (such as duration of hormone therapy and surgery requirements) for transgender individuals, which may be so onerous that they are functionally excluded.^2,5

In reality, athletes are improving over time and the performance gap between genders is shrinking. For example, in 1970 Mark Spitz swam the 100-meter freestyle in 51.94 seconds, a time that has now been surpassed by both men and women, such as Sarah Sjöström (women’s world record holder at 51.71 seconds). Athletes’ physical attributes are often less important than their training and dedication to their sport.

More importantly, this discussion raises the philosophical question of the purpose of athletics for youth and young adults. Winning and good performance can – though rarely – lead to college scholarships and professional careers, the biggest benefit of athletics comes from participation. We encourage youth to play sports not to win, but to learn about leadership, dedication, and collegiality, as well as for the health benefits of exercise. Inclusion in sports and other extracurricular activities improves depression, anxiety, and suicide rates. In fact, participation in sports has been associated with improved grades, greater homework completion, higher educational and occupational aspirations, and improved self-esteem.^8-12 Excluding a population that already experiences such drastic marginalization will cause more damage. Values of nondiscrimination and inclusion should be promoted among all student athletes, rather than “other-ism.”

Forcing trans women to compete with men will worsen their dysphoria and further ostracize the most vulnerable, giving credence to those that believe they are not “real women.” Allowing transgender individuals to play on the team consistent with their gender identity is appropriate, not only for scientific reasons but also for humanitarian ones. Such laws are based not on evidence, but on discrimination. Not only do trans women not do better than cisgender women in sports, but such proposed legislation also ignores the normal variability among individuals as well as the intense training and dedication involved in becoming a top athlete. Limiting trans women’s participation in sports does not raise up cisgender women, but rather brings us all down. Please advocate for your patients to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity to promote both their physical and emotional well-being.

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Cooper MB. Pediatric News. 2020 Dec 11, 2020.

2. Turban J. Scientific American. 2021 May 21.

3. Redfield RR et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(8):1-11.

4. Johns MM et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(3):67-71.

5. Jones BA et al. Sports Med (Auckland, New Zealand). 2017;47(4):701-16.

6. Strangio C et al. ACLU News. 2020 Apr 30.

7. Strauss L. USA Today. 2021 Apr 9.

8. Darling N et al. J Leisure Res. 2005;37(1):51-76.

9. Fredricks JA et al. Dev Psych. 2006;42(4):698-713.

10. Marsh HW et al. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2003;25(2):205.

11. Nelson MC et al. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1281-90.

12. Ortega FB et al. Int J Obes. 2008;32(1):1-11.

Young people with gender dysphoria should be considered as individuals rather than fall into an age-defined bracket when assessing their understanding to consent to hormone treatment, according to the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, as it awaits the verdict of its recent appeal in London against a High Court ruling. 

The High Court ruling, made in December 2020 as reported by this news organization, stated that adolescents with gender dysphoria were unlikely to fully understand the consequences of hormone treatment for gender reassignment and was the result of a case brought by 24-year-old Keira Bell, who transitioned from female to male at the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), starting at the age of 16, but later “detransitioned.”

Along with changes made to rules around prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors with gender dysphoria in countries such as Finland and Sweden, the English ruling signals a more cautious approach to any medical treatment for such children, as detailed in a feature published in April.

However, during the appeal, The Trust argued once more that puberty blockers give children time to “consider options” about their bodies and that the decision (the December ruling) was inconsistent with the law that “entitles children under the age of 16 to make decisions for themselves after being assessed as competent to do so by their doctor.”

Alongside other organizations, the United States–based Endocrine Society submitted written evidence in support of the Tavistock. “The High Court’s decision, if it is allowed to stand, would set a harmful precedent preventing physicians from providing transgender and gender diverse youth with high-quality medical care,” it noted in a statement.

Defending the High Court’s ruling, the lawyer for Ms. Bell said its conclusion was that puberty blockers for gender dysphoria are an “experimental” treatment with a very limited evidence base.

“The judgment of the [High Court] is entirely correct, and there is no proper basis for overturning it,” he asserted.

The 2-day appeal hearing ended on June 24, and a ruling will be made at a later date.
 

Do children understand the consequences of hormone treatment?

One central aspect of the overall case is the fact that Ms. Bell regrets her decision to transition at age 16, saying she only received three counseling sessions prior to endocrinology referral. And she consequently had a mastectomy at age 20, which she also bitterly regrets.

So a key concern is whether young people fully understand the consequences of taking puberty blockers and therapies that may follow, including cross-sex hormones.

Witness for the appeal Gary Butler, MD, consultant in pediatric and adolescent endocrinology at University College Hospital, London, where children are referred to from GIDS for hormone treatment, said the number of children who go on to cross-sex hormones from puberty blockers is “over 80%.” 

But the actual number of children who are referred to endocrinology services (where puberty blockers are initiated) from GIDS is low, at approximately 16%, according to 2019-2020 data, said a GIDS spokesperson.

“Once at the endocrinology service, young people either participate in a group education session, or if under 15 years, an individualized session between the clinician and the patient and family members,” she added. The Trust also maintained that initiation of cross-sex hormones “is separate from the prescription of puberty blockers.”

Since the December ruling, The Trust has put in place multidisciplinary clinical reviews (MDCR) of cases, and in July, NHS England will start implementing an independent multidisciplinary professional review (MDPR) to check that the GIDS has followed due process with each case.
 

Slow the process down, give appropriate psychotherapy

Stella O’Malley is a psychotherapist who works with transitioners and detransitioners and is a founding member of the International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Detransitioners (IATDD).

Whatever the outcome of the appeal process, Ms. O’Malley said she would like to see the Tavistock slow down and take a broader approach to counseling children before referral to endocrinology services. 

In discussing therapy prior to transition, Ms. O’Malley stated that her clients often say they did not explore their inner motivations or other possible reasons for their distress, and the therapy was focused more on when they transition, rather than being sure it was something they wanted to do.

“We need to learn from the mistakes made with people like Keira Bell. Clinicians need to realize that fast-tracking counseling doesn’t work, especially when [children are] ... young and especially when they’re traumatized,” Ms. O’Malley said.

“Had they received a more conventional therapy, they might have thought about their decision from different perspectives and in the process acquired more self-awareness, which would have been more beneficial.” 

“The ‘affirmative’ approach to gender therapy is too narrow; we need to look at the whole individual. Therapy in other areas would never disregard other, nongender issues such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or anxiety [which often co-exist with gender dysphoria] – issues bleed into each other,” Ms. O’Malley pointed out. “We need a more exploratory approach.”  

“I’d also like to see other therapists all over the [U.K.] who are perfectly qualified and capable of working with gender actually start working with gender issues,” she said, noting that such an approach might also help reduce the long waiting list at the Tavistock.

The latter had been overwhelmed, and this led to a speeding up of the assessment process, which led to a number of professionals resigning from the service in recent years, saying children were being “fast-tracked” to medical transition.  
 

Fertility and sexual function are complex issues for kids

Also asked to comment was Claire Graham, from Genspect, a group that describes itself as a voice for parents of gender-questioning kids.

She told this news organization that “parents are rightly concerned about their children’s ability to consent to treatments that may lead to infertility and issues surrounding sexual function.” She added that other countries in Europe were changing their approach. “Look to Sweden and Finland, who have both rowed back on puberty blockers and no longer recommend them.”

Ms. Graham, who has worked with children with differences in sexual development, added that it was very difficult for children and young people to understand the life-long implications of decisions made at an early age.

“How can children understand what it is to live with impaired sexual functioning if they have never had sex? Likewise, fertility is a complex issue. Most people do not want to become parents as teenagers, but we understand that this will often change as they grow,” said Ms. Graham.

“Many parents worry that their child is not being considered in the whole [and] that their child’s ability to consent to medical interventions for gender dysphoria is impacted by comorbidities, such as a diagnosis of autism or a history of mental health issues. These children are particularly vulnerable.”

“At Genspect, we hope that the decision from the ... court is upheld,” Ms. Graham concluded.

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

Young people with gender dysphoria should be considered as individuals rather than fall into an age-defined bracket when assessing their understanding to consent to hormone treatment, according to the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, as it awaits the verdict of its recent appeal in London against a High Court ruling. 

The High Court ruling, made in December 2020 as reported by this news organization, stated that adolescents with gender dysphoria were unlikely to fully understand the consequences of hormone treatment for gender reassignment and was the result of a case brought by 24-year-old Keira Bell, who transitioned from female to male at the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), starting at the age of 16, but later “detransitioned.”

Along with changes made to rules around prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors with gender dysphoria in countries such as Finland and Sweden, the English ruling signals a more cautious approach to any medical treatment for such children, as detailed in a feature published in April.

However, during the appeal, The Trust argued once more that puberty blockers give children time to “consider options” about their bodies and that the decision (the December ruling) was inconsistent with the law that “entitles children under the age of 16 to make decisions for themselves after being assessed as competent to do so by their doctor.”

Alongside other organizations, the United States–based Endocrine Society submitted written evidence in support of the Tavistock. “The High Court’s decision, if it is allowed to stand, would set a harmful precedent preventing physicians from providing transgender and gender diverse youth with high-quality medical care,” it noted in a statement.

Defending the High Court’s ruling, the lawyer for Ms. Bell said its conclusion was that puberty blockers for gender dysphoria are an “experimental” treatment with a very limited evidence base.

“The judgment of the [High Court] is entirely correct, and there is no proper basis for overturning it,” he asserted.

The 2-day appeal hearing ended on June 24, and a ruling will be made at a later date.
 

Do children understand the consequences of hormone treatment?

One central aspect of the overall case is the fact that Ms. Bell regrets her decision to transition at age 16, saying she only received three counseling sessions prior to endocrinology referral. And she consequently had a mastectomy at age 20, which she also bitterly regrets.

So a key concern is whether young people fully understand the consequences of taking puberty blockers and therapies that may follow, including cross-sex hormones.

Witness for the appeal Gary Butler, MD, consultant in pediatric and adolescent endocrinology at University College Hospital, London, where children are referred to from GIDS for hormone treatment, said the number of children who go on to cross-sex hormones from puberty blockers is “over 80%.” 

But the actual number of children who are referred to endocrinology services (where puberty blockers are initiated) from GIDS is low, at approximately 16%, according to 2019-2020 data, said a GIDS spokesperson.

“Once at the endocrinology service, young people either participate in a group education session, or if under 15 years, an individualized session between the clinician and the patient and family members,” she added. The Trust also maintained that initiation of cross-sex hormones “is separate from the prescription of puberty blockers.”

Since the December ruling, The Trust has put in place multidisciplinary clinical reviews (MDCR) of cases, and in July, NHS England will start implementing an independent multidisciplinary professional review (MDPR) to check that the GIDS has followed due process with each case.
 

Slow the process down, give appropriate psychotherapy

Stella O’Malley is a psychotherapist who works with transitioners and detransitioners and is a founding member of the International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Detransitioners (IATDD).

Whatever the outcome of the appeal process, Ms. O’Malley said she would like to see the Tavistock slow down and take a broader approach to counseling children before referral to endocrinology services. 

In discussing therapy prior to transition, Ms. O’Malley stated that her clients often say they did not explore their inner motivations or other possible reasons for their distress, and the therapy was focused more on when they transition, rather than being sure it was something they wanted to do.

“We need to learn from the mistakes made with people like Keira Bell. Clinicians need to realize that fast-tracking counseling doesn’t work, especially when [children are] ... young and especially when they’re traumatized,” Ms. O’Malley said.

“Had they received a more conventional therapy, they might have thought about their decision from different perspectives and in the process acquired more self-awareness, which would have been more beneficial.” 

“The ‘affirmative’ approach to gender therapy is too narrow; we need to look at the whole individual. Therapy in other areas would never disregard other, nongender issues such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or anxiety [which often co-exist with gender dysphoria] – issues bleed into each other,” Ms. O’Malley pointed out. “We need a more exploratory approach.”  

“I’d also like to see other therapists all over the [U.K.] who are perfectly qualified and capable of working with gender actually start working with gender issues,” she said, noting that such an approach might also help reduce the long waiting list at the Tavistock.

The latter had been overwhelmed, and this led to a speeding up of the assessment process, which led to a number of professionals resigning from the service in recent years, saying children were being “fast-tracked” to medical transition.  
 

Fertility and sexual function are complex issues for kids

Also asked to comment was Claire Graham, from Genspect, a group that describes itself as a voice for parents of gender-questioning kids.

She told this news organization that “parents are rightly concerned about their children’s ability to consent to treatments that may lead to infertility and issues surrounding sexual function.” She added that other countries in Europe were changing their approach. “Look to Sweden and Finland, who have both rowed back on puberty blockers and no longer recommend them.”

Ms. Graham, who has worked with children with differences in sexual development, added that it was very difficult for children and young people to understand the life-long implications of decisions made at an early age.

“How can children understand what it is to live with impaired sexual functioning if they have never had sex? Likewise, fertility is a complex issue. Most people do not want to become parents as teenagers, but we understand that this will often change as they grow,” said Ms. Graham.

“Many parents worry that their child is not being considered in the whole [and] that their child’s ability to consent to medical interventions for gender dysphoria is impacted by comorbidities, such as a diagnosis of autism or a history of mental health issues. These children are particularly vulnerable.”

“At Genspect, we hope that the decision from the ... court is upheld,” Ms. Graham concluded.

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

Young people with gender dysphoria should be considered as individuals rather than fall into an age-defined bracket when assessing their understanding to consent to hormone treatment, according to the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, as it awaits the verdict of its recent appeal in London against a High Court ruling. 

The High Court ruling, made in December 2020 as reported by this news organization, stated that adolescents with gender dysphoria were unlikely to fully understand the consequences of hormone treatment for gender reassignment and was the result of a case brought by 24-year-old Keira Bell, who transitioned from female to male at the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), starting at the age of 16, but later “detransitioned.”

Along with changes made to rules around prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors with gender dysphoria in countries such as Finland and Sweden, the English ruling signals a more cautious approach to any medical treatment for such children, as detailed in a feature published in April.

However, during the appeal, The Trust argued once more that puberty blockers give children time to “consider options” about their bodies and that the decision (the December ruling) was inconsistent with the law that “entitles children under the age of 16 to make decisions for themselves after being assessed as competent to do so by their doctor.”

Alongside other organizations, the United States–based Endocrine Society submitted written evidence in support of the Tavistock. “The High Court’s decision, if it is allowed to stand, would set a harmful precedent preventing physicians from providing transgender and gender diverse youth with high-quality medical care,” it noted in a statement.

Defending the High Court’s ruling, the lawyer for Ms. Bell said its conclusion was that puberty blockers for gender dysphoria are an “experimental” treatment with a very limited evidence base.

“The judgment of the [High Court] is entirely correct, and there is no proper basis for overturning it,” he asserted.

The 2-day appeal hearing ended on June 24, and a ruling will be made at a later date.
 

Do children understand the consequences of hormone treatment?

One central aspect of the overall case is the fact that Ms. Bell regrets her decision to transition at age 16, saying she only received three counseling sessions prior to endocrinology referral. And she consequently had a mastectomy at age 20, which she also bitterly regrets.

So a key concern is whether young people fully understand the consequences of taking puberty blockers and therapies that may follow, including cross-sex hormones.

Witness for the appeal Gary Butler, MD, consultant in pediatric and adolescent endocrinology at University College Hospital, London, where children are referred to from GIDS for hormone treatment, said the number of children who go on to cross-sex hormones from puberty blockers is “over 80%.” 

But the actual number of children who are referred to endocrinology services (where puberty blockers are initiated) from GIDS is low, at approximately 16%, according to 2019-2020 data, said a GIDS spokesperson.

“Once at the endocrinology service, young people either participate in a group education session, or if under 15 years, an individualized session between the clinician and the patient and family members,” she added. The Trust also maintained that initiation of cross-sex hormones “is separate from the prescription of puberty blockers.”

Since the December ruling, The Trust has put in place multidisciplinary clinical reviews (MDCR) of cases, and in July, NHS England will start implementing an independent multidisciplinary professional review (MDPR) to check that the GIDS has followed due process with each case.
 

Slow the process down, give appropriate psychotherapy

Stella O’Malley is a psychotherapist who works with transitioners and detransitioners and is a founding member of the International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Detransitioners (IATDD).

Whatever the outcome of the appeal process, Ms. O’Malley said she would like to see the Tavistock slow down and take a broader approach to counseling children before referral to endocrinology services. 

In discussing therapy prior to transition, Ms. O’Malley stated that her clients often say they did not explore their inner motivations or other possible reasons for their distress, and the therapy was focused more on when they transition, rather than being sure it was something they wanted to do.

“We need to learn from the mistakes made with people like Keira Bell. Clinicians need to realize that fast-tracking counseling doesn’t work, especially when [children are] ... young and especially when they’re traumatized,” Ms. O’Malley said.

“Had they received a more conventional therapy, they might have thought about their decision from different perspectives and in the process acquired more self-awareness, which would have been more beneficial.” 

“The ‘affirmative’ approach to gender therapy is too narrow; we need to look at the whole individual. Therapy in other areas would never disregard other, nongender issues such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or anxiety [which often co-exist with gender dysphoria] – issues bleed into each other,” Ms. O’Malley pointed out. “We need a more exploratory approach.”  

“I’d also like to see other therapists all over the [U.K.] who are perfectly qualified and capable of working with gender actually start working with gender issues,” she said, noting that such an approach might also help reduce the long waiting list at the Tavistock.

The latter had been overwhelmed, and this led to a speeding up of the assessment process, which led to a number of professionals resigning from the service in recent years, saying children were being “fast-tracked” to medical transition.  
 

Fertility and sexual function are complex issues for kids

Also asked to comment was Claire Graham, from Genspect, a group that describes itself as a voice for parents of gender-questioning kids.

She told this news organization that “parents are rightly concerned about their children’s ability to consent to treatments that may lead to infertility and issues surrounding sexual function.” She added that other countries in Europe were changing their approach. “Look to Sweden and Finland, who have both rowed back on puberty blockers and no longer recommend them.”

Ms. Graham, who has worked with children with differences in sexual development, added that it was very difficult for children and young people to understand the life-long implications of decisions made at an early age.

“How can children understand what it is to live with impaired sexual functioning if they have never had sex? Likewise, fertility is a complex issue. Most people do not want to become parents as teenagers, but we understand that this will often change as they grow,” said Ms. Graham.

“Many parents worry that their child is not being considered in the whole [and] that their child’s ability to consent to medical interventions for gender dysphoria is impacted by comorbidities, such as a diagnosis of autism or a history of mental health issues. These children are particularly vulnerable.”

“At Genspect, we hope that the decision from the ... court is upheld,” Ms. Graham concluded.

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

Sex should be removed as a legal designation on the public part of birth certificates, the American Medical Association said June 15.

Requiring the designation can lead to discrimination and unnecessary burden on individuals whose current gender identity does not align with their designation at birth when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

A person’s sex designation at birth would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use only, report authors note.

Willie Underwood III, MD, MSc, author of Board Report 15, explained in reference committee testimony that a standard certificate of live birth is critical for uniformly collecting and processing data, but birth certificates are issued by the government to individuals.
 

Ten states allow gender-neutral designation

According to the report, 48 states (Tennessee and Ohio are the exceptions) and the District of Columbia allow people to amend their sex designation on their birth certificate to reflect their gender identities, but only 10 states allow for a gender-neutral designation, usually “X,” on birth certificates. The U.S. Department of State does not currently offer an option for a gender-neutral designation on U.S. passports.

“Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity,” Dr. Underwood said, and it can be used to discriminate.

Jeremy Toler, MD, a delegate from GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality, testified that there is precedent for information to be removed from the public portion of the birth certificates. And much data is collected for each live birth that doesn’t show up on individuals’ birth certificates, he noted.

Dr. Toler said transgender, gender nonbinary, and individuals with differences in sex development can be placed at a disadvantage by the sex label on the birth certificate.

“We unfortunately still live in a world where it is unsafe in many cases for one’s gender to vary from the sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Toler said.

Not having this data on the widely used form will reduce unnecessary reliance on sex as a stand-in for gender, he said, and would “serve as an equalizer” since policies differ by state.

Robert Jackson, MD, an alternate delegate from the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, spoke against the measure.

“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Dr. Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female, and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”

Sarah Mae Smith, MD, delegate from California, speaking on behalf of the Women Physicians Section, said removing the sex designation is important for moving toward gender equity.

“We need to recognize [that] gender is not a binary but a spectrum,” she said. “Obligating our patients to jump through numerous administrative hoops to identify as who they are based on a sex assigned at birth primarily on genitalia is not only unnecessary but actively deleterious to their health.”
 

Race was once public on birth certificates

She noted that the report mentions that previously, information on the race of a person’s parents was included on the public portion of the birth certificate and that information was recognized to facilitate discrimination.

“Thankfully, a change was made to obviate at least that avenue for discriminatory practices,” she said. “Now, likewise, the information on sex assigned at birth is being used to undermine the rights of our transgender, intersex, and nonbinary patients.”

Arlene Seid, MD, MPH, an alternate delegate from the American Association of Public Health Physicians, said the resolution protects the aggregate data “without the discrimination associated with the individual data.”

Sex no longer has a role to play in the jobs people do, she noted, and the designation shouldn’t have to be evaluated for something like a job interview.

“Our society doesn’t need it on an individual basis for most of what occurs in public life,” Dr. Seid said.

Dr. Underwood, Dr. Toler, Dr. Jackson, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Seid declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sex should be removed as a legal designation on the public part of birth certificates, the American Medical Association said June 15.

Requiring the designation can lead to discrimination and unnecessary burden on individuals whose current gender identity does not align with their designation at birth when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

A person’s sex designation at birth would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use only, report authors note.

Willie Underwood III, MD, MSc, author of Board Report 15, explained in reference committee testimony that a standard certificate of live birth is critical for uniformly collecting and processing data, but birth certificates are issued by the government to individuals.
 

Ten states allow gender-neutral designation

According to the report, 48 states (Tennessee and Ohio are the exceptions) and the District of Columbia allow people to amend their sex designation on their birth certificate to reflect their gender identities, but only 10 states allow for a gender-neutral designation, usually “X,” on birth certificates. The U.S. Department of State does not currently offer an option for a gender-neutral designation on U.S. passports.

“Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity,” Dr. Underwood said, and it can be used to discriminate.

Jeremy Toler, MD, a delegate from GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality, testified that there is precedent for information to be removed from the public portion of the birth certificates. And much data is collected for each live birth that doesn’t show up on individuals’ birth certificates, he noted.

Dr. Toler said transgender, gender nonbinary, and individuals with differences in sex development can be placed at a disadvantage by the sex label on the birth certificate.

“We unfortunately still live in a world where it is unsafe in many cases for one’s gender to vary from the sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Toler said.

Not having this data on the widely used form will reduce unnecessary reliance on sex as a stand-in for gender, he said, and would “serve as an equalizer” since policies differ by state.

Robert Jackson, MD, an alternate delegate from the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, spoke against the measure.

“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Dr. Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female, and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”

Sarah Mae Smith, MD, delegate from California, speaking on behalf of the Women Physicians Section, said removing the sex designation is important for moving toward gender equity.

“We need to recognize [that] gender is not a binary but a spectrum,” she said. “Obligating our patients to jump through numerous administrative hoops to identify as who they are based on a sex assigned at birth primarily on genitalia is not only unnecessary but actively deleterious to their health.”
 

Race was once public on birth certificates

She noted that the report mentions that previously, information on the race of a person’s parents was included on the public portion of the birth certificate and that information was recognized to facilitate discrimination.

“Thankfully, a change was made to obviate at least that avenue for discriminatory practices,” she said. “Now, likewise, the information on sex assigned at birth is being used to undermine the rights of our transgender, intersex, and nonbinary patients.”

Arlene Seid, MD, MPH, an alternate delegate from the American Association of Public Health Physicians, said the resolution protects the aggregate data “without the discrimination associated with the individual data.”

Sex no longer has a role to play in the jobs people do, she noted, and the designation shouldn’t have to be evaluated for something like a job interview.

“Our society doesn’t need it on an individual basis for most of what occurs in public life,” Dr. Seid said.

Dr. Underwood, Dr. Toler, Dr. Jackson, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Seid declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sex should be removed as a legal designation on the public part of birth certificates, the American Medical Association said June 15.

Requiring the designation can lead to discrimination and unnecessary burden on individuals whose current gender identity does not align with their designation at birth when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

A person’s sex designation at birth would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use only, report authors note.

Willie Underwood III, MD, MSc, author of Board Report 15, explained in reference committee testimony that a standard certificate of live birth is critical for uniformly collecting and processing data, but birth certificates are issued by the government to individuals.
 

Ten states allow gender-neutral designation

According to the report, 48 states (Tennessee and Ohio are the exceptions) and the District of Columbia allow people to amend their sex designation on their birth certificate to reflect their gender identities, but only 10 states allow for a gender-neutral designation, usually “X,” on birth certificates. The U.S. Department of State does not currently offer an option for a gender-neutral designation on U.S. passports.

“Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity,” Dr. Underwood said, and it can be used to discriminate.

Jeremy Toler, MD, a delegate from GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality, testified that there is precedent for information to be removed from the public portion of the birth certificates. And much data is collected for each live birth that doesn’t show up on individuals’ birth certificates, he noted.

Dr. Toler said transgender, gender nonbinary, and individuals with differences in sex development can be placed at a disadvantage by the sex label on the birth certificate.

“We unfortunately still live in a world where it is unsafe in many cases for one’s gender to vary from the sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Toler said.

Not having this data on the widely used form will reduce unnecessary reliance on sex as a stand-in for gender, he said, and would “serve as an equalizer” since policies differ by state.

Robert Jackson, MD, an alternate delegate from the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, spoke against the measure.

“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Dr. Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female, and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”

Sarah Mae Smith, MD, delegate from California, speaking on behalf of the Women Physicians Section, said removing the sex designation is important for moving toward gender equity.

“We need to recognize [that] gender is not a binary but a spectrum,” she said. “Obligating our patients to jump through numerous administrative hoops to identify as who they are based on a sex assigned at birth primarily on genitalia is not only unnecessary but actively deleterious to their health.”
 

Race was once public on birth certificates

She noted that the report mentions that previously, information on the race of a person’s parents was included on the public portion of the birth certificate and that information was recognized to facilitate discrimination.

“Thankfully, a change was made to obviate at least that avenue for discriminatory practices,” she said. “Now, likewise, the information on sex assigned at birth is being used to undermine the rights of our transgender, intersex, and nonbinary patients.”

Arlene Seid, MD, MPH, an alternate delegate from the American Association of Public Health Physicians, said the resolution protects the aggregate data “without the discrimination associated with the individual data.”

Sex no longer has a role to play in the jobs people do, she noted, and the designation shouldn’t have to be evaluated for something like a job interview.

“Our society doesn’t need it on an individual basis for most of what occurs in public life,” Dr. Seid said.

Dr. Underwood, Dr. Toler, Dr. Jackson, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Seid declared no relevant financial relationships.

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