gender identity disorder, transgender persons, sexual transition,
gender transition, male-to-female, gender non-conform,
gender-transform, gender incongruence
* Key words used in accordance with the PI(C)O method
“transsexualism” OR “transgender” OR “transgenderism” AND (“reassignment surgery” OR “sex reassignment”) AND “quality of life” | |
(DE “Transgender” OR DE “Transsexualism” OR DE “Gender Identity Disorder”) AND (DE “Sex Change” OR DE “Surgery” OR “reassignment surgery” OR “sex reassignment”) AND “quality of life” | |
| (“Transsexualism”[Mesh]) AND (“Sex Reassignment Surgery”[Mesh]) AND (“Quality of Life”[Mesh]) ((“Transgender Persons”[Mesh]) OR “Transsexualism”[Mesh]) AND (“Quality of Life”[Mesh]) (“Quality of life”) AND (“gender reassignment surgery” OR “sex reassignment operation” OR “gender transformation operation” OR “sex reassignment surgery” OR “penile inversion vaginoplasty” AND sex* AND chang* OR sex* AND reassign* OR gender-reassign*) AND (gender-dysphor* OR transsex* OR gender-nonconform* OR gender-non-conform* OR transgend* OR transident* OR gender-incongruence OR gender-varian* OR gender-transform* OR gender-identity-disorder* OR sexual-transition OR gender-transition OR sexual-dysphor* OR transvest* OR autogyn* OR trans-sex* OR trans-gend* OR trans-ident* OR “male-to-female”) |
(gender-dysphor* OR transsex* OR gender-nonconform* OR gender-non-conform* OR trans-gend* OR trans-ident* OR gender-incongruence OR gender-varian* OR gender-transform* OR gender-identity-disorder* OR sexual-transition OR gender-transition OR sexual-dysphor* OR transvest* OR autogyn* OR trans-sex* OR trans-gend* OR trans-ident* OR “male-to-female”) AND (“gender reassignment surgery” OR “sex reassignment operation” OR “gender transformation operation” OR “sex reassignment surgery” OR “penile inversion vaginoplasty” OR sex* chang* OR sex* reassign* OR gender-reassign*) AND (“quality of life”) |
* Catch phrases and key words used in the literature search
Among others, we excluded studies that did not focus exclusively on trans persons or that didn’t collect data on quality of life by using a standardized questionnaire. We also excluded studies in underage trans people.
The Figure shows the study selection process.
Flow chart illustrating the study selection process
All included articles are non-randomized studies with an evidence level of III ( e2 ). In the case of studies that reported on the quality of life of trans women as well as trans men ( 17 – 21 ) we ensured that the data for trans women were evaluated separately or that the ratio of M–F/F–M favored trans women. Table 1 shows further key study data; Table 2 shows the quality characteristics of the studies.
| | | | | ||
) | ||||||
) | | | ||||
) | | |||||
) | | | ||||
| | |||||
) | | | , | |||
) | | | | |||
| | |||||
) | | | ||||
) | | | ||||
) | | | , | |||
) | | | ||||
) | ||||||
) | | |||||
) | | | |
* 1 Numbers of study participants after removal of dropouts ( table 2 ); exception: Lindqvist et al. ( 23 ), see Table 2
* 2 M–F, male-to-female; F–M, female to male, sex reassignment surgery
| ) | |||
Ainsworth et al. ( ) | — | — | n = 25 (10.12%) M–F* had sex reassignment surgery n = 47 (19.02%) had sex reassignment surgery and facial feminization surgery n = 28 (11.3%) had facial feminization surgery n = 147 (59.51%) had no surgery Time of survey not stated, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias, classification bias, bias owing to deviations in interventions |
Bouman et al. ( ) | 20.51% | Non-respondents n = 6 (15.38%) Lost to follow-up n = 1 (2.56%) Deceased n = 1 (2.56%) | 27 M–F (= 87.1%) completed the QoL questionnaire, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias |
Cardoso da Silva et al. ( )* | 75.26%* (n= 30 M–F [15.7%] excluded) | — | Dropout rate very high, no reasons given 31 M–F (65.95%) had corrective surgery, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias, attrition bias |
Castellano et al. ( ) | 11.76% | Non-respondents n= 8 (11.76%) | Only the domain general quality of life score and subdomains ‧sexuality and body were requested, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias Moderate: detection bias |
Jokic-Begic et al. ( ) | 25% | Lost to follow-up n = 1 (12.5%) Refused participation n = 1 (12.5%) | Very small study population, socioeconomic and clinical circumstances, psychotherapy, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias |
Kuhn et al. ( ) | — | — | No detail on interventions in the control group,no separate data analysis for M–F and F–M, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias, bias owing to deviations in interventions |
Lindqvist et al. ( )* | 77.37%* | Deceased or moved without changing address and entry in residents‘ register | Very high dropout rate, only 17 patients completed the questionnaire at all 4 follow-up points, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias, attrition bias |
Papadopulos et al. ( ) | 61.15% | Unavailable/incorrect phone number n = 38 (31.40%) Refused participation n = 14 (11.57%) Quesionnaire not completed n = 22 (18.18%) | Inclusion criteria: only patients who had had corrective surgery or those who did not require such surgery, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias |
Parola et al. ( ) | — | — | Hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias |
van der Sluis et al. ( ) | 62.5% | Non-respondents n = 6 (25%) Lost to follow-up n = 3 (12.5%) Deceased n = 5 (20.84%) Refused participation n = 1 (4.16%) | Small study population Secondary vaginoplasty Hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias |
Weyers et al. ( ) | 28.57% | Non-respondents n= 17 (24.29%) Refused participation n=3 (4.29%) | Hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias |
Yang et al. ( ) | — | — | n = 73 (34.92%) had facial feminization surgery n = 43 (20.57%) had breast augmentation surgery Only n = 4 (1.91%) had sex reassignment surgery Socioeconomic and clinical circumstances Hormone therapy in only n = 37 (17.7%) | Moderate to high: selection bias, bias owing to deviations in interventions |
Zimmermann et al. ( ) | 55.56% | Non-respondents n = 45 (50%) Incomplete questionnaire n = 3 (3.34%) Inclusion criteria not met n = 2 (2.23%) | Absolute values from FLZ questionnaire not shown, only p-values reported, no separate evaluation of FLZ questionnaire for F–M and M–F, hormone therapy | Moderate to high: selection bias |
* 1 M–F male to female; F–M female to male, reassignment surgery
* 2 Prospective study design
* 3 Of originally 190 participants, n = 160 (84.21%) completed the questionnaire preoperatively and n = 47 (24.73%) postoperatively
* 4 Out of a total of 190 study participants, n = 146 (76.84%) completed the questionnaire preoperatively, n = 108 (56.84%) 1 year postoperatively, n = 64 (33.68%) 3 years postoperatively, and n = 43 (22,63%) 5 years postoperatively. Most of the 190 participants completed the questionnaire at least at two follow-up points.
The studies made use of the following instruments:
None of the questionnaires constitutes an investigative tool that is specifically tailored to trans persons. Table 3 shows the result scales. Table 2 shows the confounding variables and, as far as it is possible to assess this, the risk of bias.
SF-36 ( , , – ) | 36 items | 0 | 100 |
WHOQOL-100 ( , ) | 100 items | 0 | 100 |
SHS ( – ) | VAS, 4 items on a 7 point Likert scale | 4 | 28 |
SWLS ( – ) | VAS, 5 items on a 7 point Likert scale | 5 | 35 |
CLLS ( – ) | VAS, short scale (L-1) | 0 | 10 |
*For the studies referenced in parentheses, it was not possible to calculate effect sizes
The SF-36 and WHOQOL-100 are validated, reliable and disease–non-specific instruments for measuring health-related quality of life ( 30 , 31 ). They can be used to gain information on the individual health status and allow for observing disease-related stresses over time. The questionnaires collect data on numerous aspects of daily life, which in their totality reflect quality of life. They are used internationally and therefore make cross-cultural studies an option ( 32 ).
Studies that used the SF-36 to answer the question of postoperative quality of life ( 18 , 20 , 22 – 25 ) observed after sex reassignment surgery an improvement in “social functioning”, “physical” and “emotional role functioning”, “general health perceptions”, “vitality”, and “mental health” (p = 0.025 to p >0.05). In two of these studies ( 22 , 24 ), “mental health” in trans women after sex reassignment surgery did not differ significantly from the standard sample. This explains the formally non-significant result. Ainsworth and Spiegel ( 22 ) showed that trans women without surgical intervention when compared indirectly with cis women from the SF-36 standard sample reported significantly poorer “mental health” (39.5 vs 48.9; p <0.05). Lindqvist et al. ( 23 ) and Weyers et al. ( 24 ) found an improvement in “self-perceived health” in the first postoperative year (p <0.05 and p <0.009), which deteriorated later but did not fall as low as its original score (p <0.0001). Furthermore, the studies concluded that “physical pain” increased postoperatively and “physical functioning” decreased; the postoperative follow-up periods varied between 3 months ( 18 ) and 5 years ( 23 ). According to Lindqvist et al. ( 23 ), “physical pain” in trans women five years postoperatively was comparable to that in the standard population (72.5 vs 72.7; SD 26.5).
Studies that used the WHOQOL-100 came up with the following results: Cardoso da Silva et al. ( 26 ) observed postoperatively an increase in “sexual activity” (p = 0.000) compared with the preoperative evaluation (prospective study design). Furthermore they found a postoperative improvement in the “psychological domain” (p = 0.041) and “social relationships” (p = 0.007), but a deterioration in “physical health” (p = 0.002) and “independence” (p = 0.031). Accordingly, deteriorations were seen in the areas of “energy” and “fatigue”, “sleep”, “negative feelings”, “mobility”, and “activities of daily living” (p <0.05). Castellano et al. ( 17 ) found after sex reassignment surgery for the group of trans women compared with the group of cis women no significant differences relating to “sexual activity” (65.85 vs 66.28; p >0.05), “body image” (64.64 vs 65.47; p >0.05), and the “quality of life score” (67.87 vs 69.49; p >0.05).
The King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ) is a validated questionnaire for evaluating the impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life ( 33 ), a topic of central importance for trans persons ( 34 ). This questionnaire interrogates the quality of life domains always in association with urinary incontinence as the main problem. Kuhn et al. ( 19 ) showed that “general health” in trans persons was experienced as poorer to a relevant extent (Cohen’s d = 4.126; p = 0.019), and “physical” (d = -7.972; p <0.0001) and “personal limitations” (d = -7.016; p <0.001) were experienced to a greater extent. In contrast to this, trans persons felt less limited in terms of “role limitation” (d = 3.311; p = 0.046). For “emotions”, “sleep”, “incontinence”, and “symptom severity”, the differences to the control group did not reach significance. The control group consisted of cis women who had undergone abdominopelvic surgery. The evaluation of the visual analogue scale (VAS) showed a lower (d = 14.136; p <0.0001) degree of general life satisfaction in the group of trans persons.
The SHS ( 35 ), SWLS ( 36 ), and CLLS ( 37 ) are validated and internationally used visual analogue scales to evaluate life satisfaction. The SHS evaluates individual happiness and associated physical, mental, and social wellbeing ( 35 ). The SWLS was used as a short-form scale in the cited studies (also known as L-1) and included only the question on general life satisfaction ( 36 ). The CLLS evaluates emotional wellbeing associated with life satisfaction as well as subjective health ( 37 ).
Studies that used the SHS, SWLS, and CLLS ( 27 , 28 ) to evaluate postoperative life satisfaction reported a high degree of “subjective happiness” (5.6; SD 1.4 and 5.9; SD 0.6), of “satisfaction with life“ (27.7; SD 5.8 and 27.1; SD 2.1) and “subjective wellbeing” (8.0 [range: 4–10] and 7.9; SD 0.7) in trans women after intestinal vaginoplasty. The studies cited earlier differ with regard to the following items: Bouman et al. ( 27 ) studied a population of young trans women (mean age: 19.1 years) with penoscrotal hypoplasia after primary laparoscopic intestinal vaginoplasty. The study participants had received puberty blockers during their transition therapy, which resulted in penoscrotal hypoplasia and made penile inversion vaginoplasty ( box ) impossible. Van der Sluis et al. ( 28 ) studied an older population (mean age: 58 years) of trans women after secondary intestinal vaginoplasty—that is, patients who required secondary intestinal reconstruction owing to vaginal stenosis or insufficient vaginal length after penile inversion vaginoplasty. The postoperative follow-up period varied between 1–7.5 years ( 27 ) and 17.2–34.3 years ( 28 ). In spite of the different patient populations, these studies found that sex reassignment surgery had a positive effect on life satisfaction.
The FLZ is a validated multidimensional questionnaire for evaluating individual general life satisfaction ( 38 ). It is used in life quality and rehabilitation research and enables the recording of changes if administered repeatedly. It is available in a German language version only; for this reason, its results apply only to German speaking populations.
Studies that used the FLZ questionnaire ( 21 , 29 ) found that the postoperative life satisfaction of trans women in terms of “health” does not differ from that of the general population. Additionally, Papadopoulos et al. ( 29 ) found no differences for “friends”, “hobbies”, “income”, “work”, and “relationship.” A subanalysis of the module “health” found postoperatively in both studies a relevant decrease in “fitness” (d = 0.521; p <0.001) and “energy” (d = 0.494; p <0.003). Zimmerman et al. ( 21 ) additionally found a significant decrease in “ability to relax/equilibrium” (p = 0.002), “fearlessness/absence of anxiety” (p = 0.015), and “absence of discomfort/pain” (p = 0.037). Both studies ( 21 , 29 ) were retrospective surveys that were undertaken once only in a time period between 6 months and 58 months postoperatively. Papadopoulos et al. ( 29 ) included only subjects into the study who did not require any further corrective surgery after sex reassignment surgery or who had already undergone a second procedure for the purpose of minor corrections.
Two prospective studies documented postoperatively a notable improvement in quality of life ( 23 , 26 ). Four studies found that the life quality of trans women after sex reassignment surgery was no different from that of cis women ( 17 , 20 , 22 , 24 ). Sex reassignment surgery has also been shown to have a positive effect on life satisfaction ( 27 , 28 )—the exception was urinary incontinence, in which case life satisfaction dropped ( 19 ). Lindqvist et al. ( 23 ) and Weyers et al. ( 24 ) observed an improvement in self-perceived health in the first postoperative year, which then drops, albeit not all the way down to its original level. This is consistent with the honeymoon phase described by De Cuypere et al. ( 39 ), which has been described as a euphoric period in the first year after surgery. Several studies ( 18 , 20 – 25 ) showed that physical pain increased after surgery and physical functioning deteriorated. This is easily explained by the surgery itself, however; the postoperative follow-up periods in these studies varied between 3 months ( 18 ) and 5 years ( 23 ).
Altogether the study results imply that sex reassignment surgery has an overall positive effect on partial aspects, such as mental health, sexuality, life satisfaction, and quality of life.
These results were confirmed by Barone et al. ( 40 ) and Murad et al. ( 15 ) in their review articles, which were published in 2017 and 2010, respectively. Barone et al. ( 40 ) in a systematic review evaluated patient reported results after sex reassignment surgery; among others, regarding life satisfaction. Murad et al. ( 15 ) in a meta-analysis focused on quality of life and psychosocial health after hormone therapy (main aspect) and sex reassignment surgery. In sum, both studies found improvements in quality of life and life satisfaction after sex reassignment surgery, and an improvement at the psychosocial level. Hess et al. ( 11 ) concluded that the study participants benefited from sex reassignment surgery—they too found high rates of satisfaction postoperatively in Germany.
As sex reassignment surgery often constitutes the final step of sex reassignment measures, hormone therapy as well as accompanying psychotherapy may have had a confounding effect. Not all studies adjusted for confounding factors. A lack of randomization and control or the use of a matched control group ( 17 , 19 ) in the studies also introduced methodological bias ( table 2 ). Furthermore, the high dropout rates of 12% ( 17 ) to 77% ( 23 ) (median: 56%), which are mainly due to non-respondents, should be assessed critically. In our experience, however, the patient population of trans women is often reticent and is not interested in study participation because of personal reasons (“to not be reminded of that time”). Other authors have shared this observation ( 18 , 24 ), which may also explain the occasionally high dropout rates. There is also the possibility that dissatisfied patients were among the dropouts. Owing to socioeconomic and clinical conditions, the studies from Croatia ( 18 ) and China ( 25 ) need to be evaluated separately. On the one hand, the authors of both studies draw attention to the public’s lack of awareness and understanding (and the associated psychological stress for trans women) in these countries, and, on the other hand, statutory sickness funds did not cover the costs of all treatments, which were therefore accessible to only few patients. This explains the notably lower participant numbers of 3 ( 18 ) and 4 ( 25 ) male-to-female transitions after sex reassignment surgery. None of the included studies reported potential suicide rates.
The strength of this review lies in the fact that we included only studies that used standardized questionnaires. Tests (such as the SF-36 or WHOQOL-100) represent validated and reliable measuring instruments, for some of which reference standard populations exist, and they enable international and intercultural comparison. Furthermore, standardized questionnaires have the advantage of a high degree of objectivity in terms of conducting, evaluating, and interpreting studies.
The available study data show that sex reassignment surgery has a positive effect on partial aspects—such as mental health/wellbeing, sexuality, and life satisfaction—as well as on quality of life overall.
It should be noted that the studies are almost exclusively retrospective analyses of mostly uncontrolled and small cohorts, for which no valid or specific measuring instruments are available to date. Because of the high dropout and non-response rates, the current data should be interpreted with caution.
In spite of the essentially positive results, the data are not satisfactory at this point in time. Due to the studies’ limited follow-up times, no conclusions can be drawn as yet about the long term consequences of such procedures. Furthermore, many studies did not use standardized questionnaires and/or scores, which makes comparisons between individual studies difficult.
Acknowledgments.
Translated from the original German by Birte Twisselmann, PhD.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.
Transgender people experience distress due to gender incongruence (i.e., a discrepancy between their gender identity and sex assigned at birth). Gender-affirming hormone treatment (GAHT) is a part of gender reassignment treatment. The therapeutic goals of the treatment are to develop the physical characteristics of the affirmed gender as far as possible. Guidelines have been developed for GAHT, which recommend dosage as well as different formulations of oestrogen and testosterone for treatment. Questions arise about the metabolic side effects of hormone treatment. Establishing reference ranges for common analytes in transgender individuals remains a task for laboratory medicine. It has been suggested once GAHT is commenced, the reference ranges for affirmed gender are reported for red blood cells, haemoglobin and haematocrit. For transgender assigned-female-at-birth (AFAB) people, testosterone concentrations are recommended to be within the reference interval established for cisgender men and for transgender assigned-male-at-birth (AMAB) people, estradiol concentrations are within the reference range for cisgender women. Sex-specific reference ranges are available for certain laboratory tests, and these may be organ (e.g., heart)-specific. Transgender-specific reference ranges may be a requirement for such tests. Laboratories may need to make decisions on how to report other tests in the transgender population, e.g., eGFR. Interpretation of further tests (e.g., reproductive hormones) can be individualized depending on clinical information. Electronic medical record systems require fields for gender identity/biological sex at birth so that laboratory results can be flagged appropriately. In this review, we aim to summarise the current position of the role of the laboratory in the clinical care of the transgender individual. Prior to the review, we will summarise the genetics of sex determination, the aetiology of gender incongruence, and the recommendations for GAHT and monitoring for the transgender population.
By Mitzi | First published January 30, 2022 | Last modified January 31, 2022
Puberty blockers are medications used to pause puberty in both cisgender and transgender youth. For the latter, significant evidence suggests that they improve well-being, psychological functioning, and risk of suicidality, both during puberty and in later life. Their effects are reversible upon discontinuation. Current evidence does not suggest any negative impact on cognitive development, IQ, or fertility. A minor impact on bone density may exist, affecting primarily transgender girls, but little high quality data is available. Based on limited data, prescribers may wish to consider calcium supplementation in transgender teens receiving puberty blockers, and may wish to prefer transdermal delivery over oral estrogens in transgender girls starting hormone therapy in order to optimise bone density outcomes. There is a lack of evidence supporting the common belief that most children grow out of gender dysphoria (“desistance”), as widely cited data describing the rate at which this happens appears highly unreliable. Puberty blockers are difficult to access, and many Western countries have sharply restricted their use recently, in a trend condemned by numerous medical associations. Randomised controlled trials on puberty blockers can likely never be performed, but nonetheless, there is clear evidence they offer significant benefit, and have relatively minor risks.
Puberty blockers, also known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues , were introduced for medical use in the 1980s ( Swerdloff & Heber, 1983 ). Originally developed to supersede other therapies in the treatment of prostate cancer, they were soon adapted for paediatric use, revolutionising the treatment of precocious puberty : a rare condition in which puberty begins before the age of 8 (in natal girls) or 9 (in natal boys). Precocious puberty is associated with several negative consequences, such as short stature, teasing, bullying, and worse mental health outcomes. By reversibly pausing puberty for several years in children with this condition, outcomes are often significantly improved, and puberty blockers remain the mainstay treatment for this condition several decades later.
In the 1990s, puberty blockers began to be used in transgender adolescents, as a way of pausing their unwanted puberty, and giving them more time to consider their future ( Cohen-Kettenis & van Goozen, 1998 ). The protocol for this, originally develped by the Dutch VUmc clinic , has sometimes been referred to as the “Dutch Method.” Cohen-Kettenis et al. (2011) published a study following one such Dutch patient 22 years later. Since then, the use of puberty blockers has increased tremendously with the increase in patients seeking transgender healthcare.
Recently, puberty blockers have been the subject of controversy, with legal proceedings seeking to prohibit their use across several countries. Notably, their use was temporarily stopped in the United Kingdom in December 2020 following a ruling in the Bell v. Tavistock case, which was appealed in 2021. Also in 2021, Arkansas became the first U.S. state to make it illegal for doctors to prescribe puberty blockers, with several other states pursuing similar legislation. Critics express concern about the safety of puberty blockers, their reversibility, and effectiveness.
This article seeks to review the literature on the use and safety of puberty blockers in transgender youth, examining their safety, and arguments for and against their use in a comprehensive way. While rarely, alternative medications like the progestin medroxyprogesterone acetate have been used for this, this article mainly focuses on GnRH agonists : by far the most widely used class of medication for puberty blockade, and what’s most commonly colloquially referred to as “puberty blockers.”
GnRH is a naturally occurring hormone in humans responsible for the release of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) from the pituitary gland . Through this mechanism, the body produces its gonadal estrogen and testosterone. GnRH agonists bind to the GnRH receptor and activate it, causing it to be continuously stimulated. This causes an initial increase of LH and FSH, then over the course of several weeks, causes the pituitary gland to become desensitised, pausing the natural sex hormone production for the duration the medication is taken. When the medication is stopped, its effect is reversed, with normal sex hormone production resuming about a week after the medication clears the body ( Cedrin-Durnerin et al., 2000 ).
GnRH agonists are prescribed as an injection administered every one to six months, a surgically implanted pellet once per year, or a nasal spray administered two to three times per day. A short-acting daily injection exists, but is not used for puberty blockade in clinical practise. Common examples of GnRH agonists include leuprorelin (Lupron; Eligard), triptorelin (Decapeptyl), goserelin (Zoladex), histrelin (Supprelin LA), nafarelin (Synarel) and buserelin (Suprefact).
Like GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists bind to the GnRH receptor, however, they do not stimulate it. Instead, they compete with the body’s own GnRH, rendering it ineffective. As a result, they achieve similar effects without causing an initial increase in hormone levels. Also unlike GnRH agonists, oral formulations of GnRH antagonists exist, allowing some of them to be taken as a daily pill. Common examples include elagolix (Orilissa), degarelix (Firmagon), cetrorelix (Cetrotide), ganirelix (Orgalutran; Antagon) and relugolix (Orgovyx; Relumina). Unfortunately, being much newer drugs, GnRH antagonists are not normally used as puberty blockers at the moment.
In gender dysphoric youth, GnRH agonists are prescribed after the onset of puberty. GnRH agonists are not prescribed to children who have not yet started puberty, but may be started at any point during puberty to pause further changes ( Hembree et al., 2017 ).
In medicine, the gold standard for evidence is the randomised controlled trial , or RCT. In a nutshell, participants are randomly assigned into two or more treatment groups (arms), such that the only difference between arms is the treatment they receive. Commonly, one group receives a placebo, while another receives the treatment being studied. The ideal RCT is blinded, meaning neither participants nor investigators of the study know which group is receiving which treatment. No such trials have been performed with puberty blockers, giving rise to concerns that there could be insufficient evidence available for their use.
Unfortunately, RCTs may not be practically possible for puberty blockers, and are unlikely to ever be performed. A good summary of the reasons for this is provided by Giordano & Holm (2020) :
There are two main practical problems that preclude conducting a RCT. First, patients who approach clinics for help because of distress caused by the first signs of puberty will be unlikely to accept to be a part of a RCT. Medications are needed within a relatively short period of time, at pain of treatment being less effective or ineffective. Recruitment would thus be hard if not impossible. Second, the ideal RCT is either double blind, i.e. neither researchers nor participants know who gets the active drug, or it assesses outcomes using blinded observers when treatment allocation cannot be hidden from participants. Blinding is necessary in order to reduce bias in outcome assessments. But, a RCT of puberty delay could not maintain blinding. Because GnRHa are effective in delaying puberty it would soon become evident to participants, researchers and outcome assessors who was in the active treatment arm and who was not. This breakdown of blinding would mean that there would be potential bias in the outcome assessments, both in relation to biological and psychological outcomes. It would also mean that participants allocated to the non-treatment arm of the study would be likely to either withdraw from the study at a much higher rate than in the treatment arm introducing potential bias, and/or be more likely not to adhere to the trial but seek puberty delaying treatment outside of the trial thereby adding a confounder.
Mul et al. (2001) ran into this problem conducting a similar study on teens with precocious puberty:
In the original study design a third arm with untreated children was scheduled as a control group. It was decided to omit this control group from the study design after it appeared that the parents of all patients who were randomized in the untreated control group refused further participation in the study as GnRHa treatment could be obtained elsewhere.
Besides practical limitations, such RCTs are likely to be unethical. Evidence suggests withholding puberty blockers may cause lasting harm in itself. To knowingly cause such harm to the control group of an RCT is likely to be morally unacceptable, and such an RCT would be unlikely to receive approval from an ethical review board.
This is not to say that studies evaluating such outcomes don’t exist at all: for example, while not randomised or blinded, Costa et al. (2015) compares 101 patients receiving psychological support and puberty blockers to 100 patients receiving psychological support alone. The results of this study are further outlined below.
As a result of these limitations, this article mainly cites cohort studies , making the argument that sufficient other high-quality studies exist to reach well-supported conclusions: a practise sometimes required in other areas of medicine as well. Because this is the only way we can practically evaluate puberty blockers and RCTs are likely impossible, it seems disingenuous to make the claim that lack of RCTs equate to lack of evidence around puberty blockers, as this standard of evidence can never be met, and the claim ignores a substantial existing body of literature.
A significant body of evidence associates the use of puberty blockers in those who want such treatment with improved psychological well-being: the primary argument for their use.
While different studies use different methodologies, three standardised psychological questionnaires are typically used to evaluate well-being: the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and the Youth Self-Report (YSR). All three are aimed at evaluating psychological functioning and problematic behaviour: typically, the CGAS is administered by a clinician, the CBCL is filled out by a parent or guardian, and the YSR is filled out by a child themselves. It’s important to note that scores in these assessments are known to markedly worsen in adolescence in general, with the onset of psychological difficulties and self-harm often appearing during puberty ( Verhuist et al., 2003 ; Nock et al., 2013 ; Morey et al., 2017 ; Jung et al., 2018 ).
One of the largest studies to investigate well-being to date has been Turban et al. (2020) . It surveyed 20,619 American transgender adults. 3,494 (16.9%) reported that they ever wanted to receive puberty blockers. Of those, only 89 received them. In total, 75.3% of those who received puberty blockers reported ever experiencing suicidal thoughts, compared to 90.2% of those who did not. After controlling for demographic variables like income, family support, and education level, puberty blockers remained significantly associated with decreased odds of lifetime suicidal ideation.
A similarly large survey by Green et al. (2021) included 11,914 Americans aged 13–24 who identified as transgender or nonbinary. The study compares those who received hormone therapy or puberty blockers to those who wished to receive them, but didn’t. It finds that in those who received treatment, rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts were significantly lower. This remained true of those aged 13–17, who were significantly more likely to receive puberty blockers specifically.
Costa et al. (2015) studied 201 gender dysphoric adolescents who presented at the British Tavistock and Portman NHS Gender Identity Development Service . Of them, half were considered eligible for puberty blockers immediately, receiving them in addition to psychological support. The other half were not considered immediately eligible for puberty blockers, citing reasons such as psychiatric problems or conflicts with parents and siblings. These patients received only psychological support for the following 18 months. All patients’ global psychological functioning was assessed using the CGAS questionnaire. Both groups showed significantly improved psychological functioning with psychological support, but the group receiving only psychological support stalled and showed no further improvement towards the end of the study, while those receiving puberty blockers continued to show greater improvement. The authors point out that the eventual CGAS score of the group receiving puberty blockers coincided almost perfectly with those found in a sample of children/adolescents without observed psychological/psychiatric symptoms.
CGAS scores of psychological functioning in transgender teens receiving puberty blockers and psychological support, compared to those receiving psychological support alone in . |
A later study at the same British gender identity clinic, Carmichael et al. (2021) , received widespread media coverage in the United Kingdom following its mixed findings. It followed 44 gender dysphoric adolescents who received puberty blockers. CGAS scores were higher than the 2015 study at baseline, and showed slower and more modest improvement. The study reached contradictory conclusions, with improvements reported in some questionnaires, but not others, even for comparable measurements. Interestingly, in some of the researchers’ measures of well-being, social acceptance, and self-perception, adolescents themselves reported significant improvements, while their parents reported almost no improvement. The study characterises participants’ overall experiences with puberty blockers as positive, but is difficult to draw any conclusions from.
De Vries et al. (2011) and de Vries et al. (2014) investigate the psychological outcomes of the same cohort of transgender adolescents receiving puberty blockers at the VUmc gender clinic in the Netherlands. Both investigate psychological outcomes in a range of tests, with the 2014 study providing long-term follow-up many years after puberty blockers, and after gender reassignment surgery. In the studied cohort, psychological functioning improves and depression decreases over time, as evidenced by standardised tests, including CGAS scores. Significant improvements in well-being are reported both during treatment with puberty blockers, and in the years after, with hormone therapy and surgery. Unlike Carmichael et al., CBCL and YSR scores improve.
Van der Miesen et al. (2020) charts psychological well-being across 3 groups of Dutch adolescents: 272 transgender adolescents who haven’t yet received puberty blockers, 178 adolescents receiving puberty blockers, and 651 cisgender adolescents from the general population. The study finds poorer psychological functioning in those before treatment, while psychological functioning and well-being is similar to cisgender adolescents in those receiving pubertal suppression. These findings are in line with Costa et al. (2015) , which noted that those receiving puberty blockers reached CGAS scores comparable to the general (age-matched) population.
Percentages of teens who report suicidality in . Suicidality was defined as endorsing the statement “I deliberately try to hurt or kill myself” or “I think about killing myself.” Suicidality among Dutch transgender youth has not significantly changed over time, making cohort differences unlikely ( ). |
In addition to the studies listed above, several smaller, less focused studies have also assessed the well-being of transgender adolescents receiving puberty blockers and reported overall positive experiences ( Khatchadourian et al., 2014 ; Achille et al., 2020 ; Kuper et al., 2020 ). No studies report a decline in psychological functioning or notably negative psychological outcomes with the use of puberty blockers.
In combination, this strongly suggests that puberty blockers improve well-being and psychological functioning in children who experience gender dysphoria. In addition, it suggests that inappropriately withholding them may lead to worse later-life outcomes, such as increased suicidality.
Counterintuitively, several of the studies listed do note that puberty blockers don’t reduce gender dysphoria ( de Vries et al., 2011 ; Carmichael et al., 2021 ). It’s important to be aware that this finding refers to the wish to transition, rather than psychological well-being. The finding is based on the Utrecht Gender Dysphoria Scale questionnaire ( de Vries et al., 2006 ). To illustrate, the version for transmasculine youth asks patients whether they endorse such statements as “I prefer to behave like a boy”, “I wish I had been born as a boy”, “I hate having breasts”, and “every time someone treats me like a girl, I feel hurt.”
When studies note that puberty blockers don’t reduce gender dysphoria, this means children don’t stop identifying as transgender after receiving puberty blockers. They continue to want to transition. De Vries et al. (2011) points out this is the expected outcome:
As expected, puberty suppression did not result in an amelioration of gender dysphoria. Previous studies have shown that only gender reassignment consisting of cross-sex hormone treatment and surgery may end the actual gender dysphoria. None of the gender dysphoric adolescents in this study renounced their wish for gender reassignment during puberty suppression. This finding supports earlier studies showing that young adolescents who had been carefully diagnosed show persisting gender dysphoria into late adolescence or young adulthood
Unlike hormone therapy, no risk of permanent infertility is believed to exist with the use of puberty blockers. Several long-term follow-up studies of patients treated with puberty blockers have found normal fertility. Among others, Feuillan et al. (1999) , Heger et al. (1999) , Heger et al. (2006) and Lazar et al. (2014) find no indication of impaired fertility in patients treated with puberty blockers for precocious puberty. In the years and decades following their treatments, the several hundred patients in these studies are found to conceive normally without an increased need for assisted reproductive technology, and with uneventful pregnancies. Despite several decades of use, no reports exist in literature of permanent infertility linked to puberty blockers. Interestingly, transgender populations do have higher rates of sperm abnormalities than cisgender populations, before any medical treatment has taken place ( Li et al., 2018 ; Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2021 ).
In contrast, hormone therapy may cause permanent infertility ( Hembree et al., 2017 ; Cheng et al., 2019 ). If fertility preservation has not been accessed before beginning treatment, puberty blockers must be stopped to do so, ideally before hormone therapy begins. When puberty blockers are stopped, unwanted sex characteristics continue to develop. Transgender people may find this extremely distressing, which may be one reason for them to not pursue fertility preservation.
No data exists on the exact length of time for which puberty blockers need to be stopped before full fertility is restored, and it likely varies depending on the age puberty blockers were initiated. Bertelloni et al. (2000) found spermarche took place between 0.7 to 3 years after discontinuation of puberty blockers in boys treated for precocious puberty. Barnard et al. (2019) report on the case of a single transgender patient who had been receiving puberty blockers for 6 months, from the age of 17. Three months after the last dose of monthly leuprorelin, no viable sperm sample could be produced. Five months after, their sample was viable.
Regardless of this, transgender individuals are extremely unlikely to use fertility preservation, with some estimates suggesting utilisation rates below 5% in North America ( Chen et al., 2017 ; Nahata et al., 2017 ). In one piece of research, Pang et al. (2020) questioned 102 transgender Australian teens on their reasons for declining fertility preservation. The following statistics were gathered:
Australian transgender teens’ reasons for declining fertility preservation in . |
As such, there is no evidence-based reason to believe puberty blockers could cause infertility, with fertility returning when they are discontinued. However, due to low discontinuation rates for puberty blockers and low fertility preservation rates, those who start puberty blockers and persist are unlikely to have biological children. Clinical guidelines recommend that adolescents seeking puberty blockers should be counselled on options for fertility preservation, and parents should be involved in this ( Hembree et al., 2017 ).
Bone density is a measure of the amount of bone mineral present in bone tissue. Bone density is measured using imaging techniques, such as DEXA scans : a type of X-ray. It is used to predict patients’ risk of breaking bones. The clinical terms for low bone density are osteopenia , and in more severe cases, osteoporosis , which is common among the elderly. For the purposes of this review, the most relevant measurement of bone density is the z-score , which expresses a patient’s bone density in comparison to other people of the same age and sex. A z-score of 0 indicates bone density equal to the general population. Small deviations, such as -0.2, may not always be relevant, but z-scores below -1 may be cause for concern.
There are concerns around the effects of puberty blockers on bone health. Puberty is a critical time for the accrual of bone density: a process largely driven by sex hormones. This process is delayed in those receiving puberty blockers, leading to temporary lower bone density and z-scores compared to peers going through puberty normally. While these short-term z-scores are not particularly relevant, long-term outcomes are very important: the question becomes what z-scores look like in the long term, into adulthood, and whether the use of puberty blockers has any impact on later-life fracture risk. Literature on this is uncertain.
Klink et al. (2015) finds that in both trans girls and trans boys, z-scores are lower both before treatment, and after long-term follow-up. The study suggests a small negative effect on final bone density from the use of puberty blockers, although many measurements fail to reach statistical significance. The study records notably lower final z-scores for trans girls than trans boys.
Vlot et al. (2017) finds that 2 years after beginning hormone therapy, z-scores were returning towards normal. In trans boys, final z-scores were negligibly lower, while in trans girls, the effect was much more pronounced, with meaningfully lower z-scores both before and after treatment.
In line with this, Schagen et al. (2020) finds that in its cohort, final z-scores normalised after 3 years of hormone therapy for trans boys, while they remained meaningfully low both before and after treatment for trans girls.
Bone Mineral Apparent Density (BMAD) of the across multiple studies, relative to sex assigned at birth. Three measurements are taken in each study: the initiation of puberty blockers, the initiation of hormone therapy, and one measurement after several years of hormone therapy. A z-score below -1 is commonly considered to be clinically relevant osteopenia, while a score below -2.5 is considered to be osteoporosis. The figure illustrates that trans girls tend to have significantly lower bone density before, during, and after treatment, while this is not the case for trans boys. Trans girls also tend to receive puberty blockers for a longer time. |
Guaraldi et al. (2016) find in their literature review that in those receiving puberty blockers for precocious puberty, bone mineral density is lower than that of untreated peers during treatment with puberty blockers, then typically recovers when puberty is initiated, with long-term follow-up showing little difference to the general population. Combined with the results of trans boys, this suggests that not puberty blockers themselves, but rather, subsequent suboptimal hormone therapy in trans girls could potentially be to blame for their more pronounced negative outcomes.
The hormone therapy prescribed to trans girls in the listed studies may be suboptimal in several ways. To begin with, all three use very low adult maintenance dosages of no more than 2 mg oral estradiol in transfeminine patients. Such a dose is likely to produce serum estradiol levels of roughly 50 pg/ml on average: below the average estradiol exposure of cis women ( Aly, 2018 ; Aly, 2020 ). Many clinical guidelines recommend higher levels, which some research suggests could have a small positive effect on final bone density compared to lower dosages ( Roux, 1997 ; Riggs et al., 2012 ). Indeed, the authors of all three studies themselves note their doses were low and may have been inadequate for optimal bone density.
Also significantly, all studies use oral estrogens. Oral estrogens significantly reduce IGF-1 levels ( Isotton et al., 2012 ; Southmayd & De Souza, 2017 ), which is thought to play a vital role in bone density accrual, and strongly correlates with bone density ( Barake, Klibanski & Tritos, 2014 ; Locatelli & Bianchi, 2014 ; Ekbote et al., 2015 ; Lindsey & Mohan, 2016 ; Barake et al., 2018 ). Some experts have recommended transdermal estrogens over oral estrogens to improve bone density outcomes in girls suffering from Turner syndrome ( Davenport, 2010 ), and tentative evidence appears to support the practise ( Zaiem et al., 2017 ). As such, while not currently discussed in most clinical guidelines, the prevalence of oral estrogens in transgender teens is a concern, and avoiding them in favour of transdermal estrogens could lead to improved final bone density.
As a final confounding factor, none of the studies control for lifestyle factors associated with lower bone density, such as exercise, smoking, vitamin D, and calcium intake. These factors have a significant effect on bone density. Transgender people are more likely to smoke, less likely to exercise, and less likely to consume adequate calcium, both as teens and as adults ( Jones et al., 2018 ; Kidd, Dolezal & Bockting, 2018 ). This is believed to be the reason transgender people of all ages tend to have lower bone density before any treatment is initiated. Without controlling for these factors, which may distort the available data significantly, it’s difficult to draw confident conclusions from these studies, and a causal link between the use of puberty blockers and lower final bone density remains unproven. If such a link does exist, the effect seems unlikely to be dramatic, and unlikely to outweigh the benefits of puberty blockers.
In a noteworthy study, Antoniazzi et al. (2003) report that in those receiving puberty blockers for precocious puberty, bone mineral density is better preserved through calcium supplementation. Calcium intake is often inadequate in transgender youth ( Lee et al., 2020 ), and therefore warrants further study for improving their bone mineral density. Alongside calcium, lifestyle interventions, the use of transdermal instead of oral estrogens, and the avoidance of subphysiological adult dosages of estradiol could all potentially improve bone-related outcomes over current clinical practise.
One possible concern is the impact of puberty blockers on IQ and cognitive development. Very little research on the subject exists, with commonly cited critical studies investigating sheep rather than humans ( Hough et al., 2017 ), or being case studies of a single patient ( Schneider et al., 2017 ). Only two larger studies investigate this:
Staphorsius et al. (2015) , the only study to investigate this in a transgender population, evaluated performance in the standardised Tower of London test , as well as IQ scores. The study found no significant differences in executive functioning between the two groups. IQ was slightly lower in transgender girls receiving puberty suppression than the control group, but the same was not true in a statistically relevant way of transgender boys. Age differences, lifestyle factors, and a very low sample size may all explain these differences.
Wojniusz et al. (2016) assessed 15 girls suffering from precocious puberty and treated with a puberty blocker. The 15 girls were compared with 15 age-matched controls. Both groups showed similar IQ scores.
Neither study has very many participants, records baseline cognitive performance, or controls for confounding factors. As such, very few conclusions can be drawn from them. Decades of clinical experience with the use of puberty blockers in children suggests it’s unlikely any particularly dramatic effect on IQ exists, but without much larger, higher quality studies, no conclusion on this can be reached, and further research is needed.
Discontinuation rates for patients on puberty blockers are very low, with fewer than 5% of teens typically stopping them without going on to hormone therapy ( Wiepjes et al., 2018 ; Brik et al., 2020 ; Kuper et al., 2020 ). A potential concern is that this could mean puberty blockers put children on an almost guaranteed path towards gender transition, when they might otherwise change their minds.
Surprisingly, while a commonly held belief suggests most gender dysphoric children will grow out of it without treatment at a later age, little convincing evidence supports this claim. While existing studies report desistance rates ranging from 43% ( Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis, 2008 ) to 88% ( Drummond et al., 2008 ), they often contain significant methodological issues.
Historically, in the 20th century, a transgender identity was viewed as a negative outcome: it was something for a patient to be cured of, for example through aversion therapy. Since then, a cultural shift towards transgender people has taken place. Older studies into desistance rates are often reflective of this. As an example, Kosky (1987) describes eight boys who were hospitalised in a psychiatric unit for displaying effeminate behaviour and cross-dressing, where they received intensive treatment aimed at curing them. Today, these behaviours are more accepted, and they are not necessarily viewed as the same thing as a transgender gender identity. Clearly, a study like this cannot be used to estimate the desistance rates of today’s gender dysphoric children.
Other studies describing the 1960s through 1980s are similar ( Bakwin, 1968 ; Lebovitz, 1972 ; Zuger, 1978 ; Money & Russo, 1979 ; Davenport, 1986 ). Many predate the DSM-III , and thus the existence of formal diagnostic criteria. Few studied self-reported gender identity: instead, they tend to study gender non-conforming behaviour, such as cross-dressing, that doesn’t necessarily constitute a transgender identity. Many of them try to discourage patients as a core part of their treatment, sometimes in ways that are now banned across much of the world as conversion therapy . Combined with a drastically changed society, extrapolating modern transgender desistance rates from these studies is unreasonable.
A small number of more recent studies do exist. The highest desistance rates found in modern literature are approximately 88%, reported by three frequently cited Canadian studies: Drummond et al. (2008) , Drummond et al. (2018) , and Singh, Bradley & Zucker (2021) . Unfortunately, these studies appear to be at a high risk of bias: calling their credibility into question, the clinic in which they took place was closed in 2015, amidst allegations of conversion therapy. An independent review found that it “cannot state that the clinic does not practice reparative approaches.” In the review, many children and their parents report feeling the clinic was invasive and intimidating to them. Some instances include:
Assessments are described as intrusive and even traumatic by some, who described feeling “poked and prodded”. One way mirror and multiple observers create discomfort. Many questions were felt to be irrelevant, unnecessarily intrusive (particularly those regarding sexual fantasies), especially when asked without context, rationale, and what seems to be inadequate or even absent informed consent. Also, it is unclear whether any potential benefit of this line of questioning to the patient was explained. Parents of younger clients report their child appearing to be and later reporting feeling they were very uncomfortable with the way they were asked about their gender variance “as if my child was not okay as a person.” One parent described feeling “dismissed” when she spoke to clinicians about this.
Patients reported feeling intimidated to question Dr. Zucker regarding their concerns and were not offered the opportunity to decline. Multiple informants commented on this.
Chart documentation revealed statements reflecting that the diversity of gender expression and variance are not accepted equally. One example is of a child for whom all gender and body dysphoria had resolved and multiple informants indicated sustained good mood and satisfaction with social and academic functioning. Despite this, the parents of the child were advised at discharge to encourage the child to spend more time with cisgendered boys because he had effeminate speech and mannerisms. These were not goals of the client or family.
This may explain why these studies find a much higher desistance rate than other modern literature, and makes them very unlikely to be representative figures. As an alternative possibility, Steensma & Cohen-Kettenis (2018) suggest that differences in the local social climate regarding gender variance may have also been an important contributing factor.
Steensma et al. (2011) and Steensma et al. (2013) set out to investigate factors that could contribute to the persistence or desistance of gender dysphoria in children. The 2011 study reports a desistance rate of 45%, while the 2013 study reports 73%. The figures have been criticised because all children lost to follow-up are assumed to have desisted, which may or may not have inflated their number. More importantly however, in Steensma & Cohen-Kettenis (2018) , the authors themselves argue they’ve been cited out of context, and their figures can’t be used to extrapolate desistance rates:
Unlike what is suggested, we have not studied the gender identities of the children. Instead we have studied the persistence and desistence of children’s distress caused by the gender incongruence they experience to the point that they seek clinical assistance. […] Using the term desistence in this way does not imply anything about the identity of the desisters. The children could still be hesitating, searching, fluctuating, or exploring with regard to their gender experience and expression, and trying to figure out how they wanted to live. Apparently, they no longer desired some form of gender-affirming treatment at that point in their lives.
Again, because of the purpose and the design of this study we did not report prevalence numbers in the sample under study. Furthermore, the sample in the 2013 study did not include children in the younger age spectrum of the referred population to the Amsterdam clinic. Reporting prevalence of persistence and/or desistance in this sample would therefore not be reliable.
The only other modern study into persistence rates has been Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis (2008) . The study appears to be of higher quality and provides the most convincing estimate available: a 27% persistence rate and a 43% desistance rate over the course of (on average) 10 years. The remaining 30% of participants were lost to follow-up.
Several further problems cast doubt on the data presented in all of these studies, including Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis (2008) . Firstly: children are diagnosed using DSM-III and DSM-IV criteria, which are dated by today’s standards. In these older criteria, gender identity was not a diagnostic requirement: a child could be diagnosed with a gender identity disorder for a range of gender non-conforming behaviours, without themselves identifying as a different gender, or experiencing distress with their gender role or sex characteristics ( Temple Newhook et al., 2018 ).
Strikingly, with the exception of Steensma et al. (2011) , all studies include a significant number of children who never actually met then-current DSM diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder: in the case of Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis (2008) , a quarter of all participants. These participants have been assumed to be transgender for the purposes of extrapolating desistance rates, but held a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise Specified: a broad category described by the DSM as representing those who may not necessarily seek medical transition, but may transiently cross-dress, be preoccupied with castration, or be intersex and experience gender dysphoria. These participants’ exact circumstances are not described by the researchers, but both Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis and Steensma et al. report in their studies that all, or nearly all persisters met DSM diagnostic criteria, while only about half of desisters did.
Outside of this, there is a lack of long-term follow-up. A gender dysphoric child might desist in transitioning during their teens, but go on to transition in adulthood, for example because of peer pressure or lack of parental acceptance. Whether this happens at any significant rate has not been studied.
The studies do suggest that for an unknown percentage of children, gender dysphoria will resolve over time, but the high desistance rates often cited as an established fact don’t appear to be supported by evidence. Concerns that puberty blockers cause children to transition when they otherwise would’ve aged out of gender dysphoria appear misplaced: children whose dysphoria persisted were much more likely to have met the diagnostic criteria to receive puberty blockers.
Current literature on this will likely soon be superseded by higher-quality data, with several very large, well-funded studies into gender dysphoric youth now underway the United States ( Olson-Kennedy et al., 2019 ), Australia ( Tollit et al., 2019 ) and the United Kingdom ( Kennedy et al., 2019 ).
Desistance and persistence rates can suggest a binary view, and should be seen in a greater context. Because children’s needs change over time, a hypothetical child might feel uncertain about their gender, possibly even receive puberty blockers, and then later decide they do not wish to transition. In such a case, puberty blockers may have met their needs at the time, and were not automatically harmful or regrettable, particularly due to their reversible nature. Neither being transgender, nor being cisgender should be seen as a negative outcome. In their critical commentary, Temple Newhook et al. (2018) write that it is important to respect children’s wishes and autonomy, and move away from the question of, “How should children’s gender identities develop over time?” toward a more useful question: “How should children best be supported as their gender identity develops?”
In light of persistence and desistance rates, it makes sense to ask how patients themselves feel about their treatment with puberty blockers, and whether they regret receiving them. Limited research exists on the subject:
A large retrospective review of the medical files of all 6,793 patients treated at the Dutch VUmc clinic between 1972 and 2015 found that 14 patients (0.2%) regretted their treatment in total. This included patients who received puberty suppression, hormone therapy, and/or surgery. Notably, 5 of them regretted their treatment because of a lack of social acceptance ( Wiepjes et al., 2018 ).
De Vries et al. (2014) , found none of the 55 transgender patients they followed regretted receiving puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgery. Psychological well-being continued to improve in their cohort, both with puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and later gender reassignment surgery.
Vrouenraets et al. (2016) interviewed 13 adolescents who had been seen at a Dutch gender identity clinic, twelve of whom had received puberty blockers. Asked about long-term risks, most responded that they were significantly outweighed by puberty blockers allowing them to live a more happy life. Quotes from the interviewed children in the study include:
The possible long-term consequences are incomparable with the unhappy feeling that you have and will keep having if you don’t receive treatment with puberty suppression. (trans boy; age: 18)
It isn’t a choice, even though a lot of people think that. Well, actually it is a choice: living a happy life or living an unhappy life. (trans girl; age: 14)
They also comment on the increasing attention to transgender people in media, with one child saying:
Thanks to media coverage I learned that gender dysphoria exists; that someone can have these feelings and that you can get treatment for it. Beforehand I thought I was the only one like this. (trans boy; age: 18)
While large geographic differences exist, on the whole, access to puberty blockers is often difficult.
In the United States, Turban et al. (2020) found that access to puberty blockers was associated with a greater household income, noting that the annual cost of them ranges from $4,000 to $25,000 and insurance coverage was unavailable to many. It also found that transgender teens were less likely to receive puberty blockers if they did not identify as heterosexual or binary. Of those who received puberty blockers, 60% reported traveling <25 miles for gender-affirming care, 29% travelled between 25 and 100 miles, and 11% travelled >100 miles. As of 2021, several states are pursuing regulation banning the use of puberty blockers, with Arkansas having become the first to pass such a law. Several large professional bodies representing thousands of medical experts have condemned this type of regulation ( American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2019 ; American Medical Association, 2021 ; Endocrine Society, 2021 ).
In the United Kingdom, waiting lists as long as 4 years or more exist for initial intake appointments for puberty blockers. Legislative changes in light of Bell v. Tavistock complicated access dramatically: in the nine months between the ruling and its reversal, no under-17s received puberty blockers under the public healthcare sytem, and reports described the care of adolescents over 16, who were not affected by the judgement, being discontinued as well. Restrictions in light of Bell v. Tavistock were condemned by WPATH, EPATH, USPATH, AsiaPATH, CPATH, AusPATH, and PATHA, the leading medical associations for transgender health, who released a statement saying they believe it will cause significant harm to the affected patients ( WPATH, 2020 ), as well as Amnesty International UK and Liberty ( Amnesty International UK, 2020 ).
In Sweden, the Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital, a part of the Karolinska University Hospital , has recently stopped prescribing puberty blockers , citing the Bell v. Tavistock case as their motivation.
In Finland, new prescriber guidelines for treating gender dysphoric teens were released in 2020 ( Society for Evidence Based Medicine, 2021 ). They broke with WPATH guidelines, instead recommending that gender dysphoric teens receive psychosocial support and psychotherapy as a first-line treatment, and discouraging the use of puberty blockers, with the addition of much stricter criteria for their use. The Finnish health authority has stated that these recommendations will not be revised until further research is available.
A similar trend of increasing wait times and difficult access holds in many other countries, with the process to receive puberty blockers sometimes taking up to several years. Because of their time-sensitive nature in preventing unwanted permanent changes, long-term outcomes are likely to be worse with slower treatment. Some evidence supports this: for example, one study found that reducing treatment wait times led to reduced depression and anxiety compared to historical controls ( Dahlgren Allen et al., 2021 ).
Unknowns exist around puberty blockers in transgender youth, but their risks seem to be relatively minor based on available research, while clear evidence associates their use with improved well-being, psychological functioning, and reduced suicidality.
Based on parallels from research in cisgender teens treated for precocious puberty, as well as limited studies and clinical experience with transgender teens, it’s unlikely that puberty suppression has a dramatic negative effect on children’s final bone density, lifetime fracture risk, IQ, or cognitive development when prescribed in line with medical guidelines. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not they have any impact at all.
Although not supported by conclusive evidence, the use of puberty blockers may have a modest negative impact on bone density. This could be related to the use of puberty blockers themselves, but could also be related to suboptimal hormone therapy regimens after their use, particularly in transgender girls, as well as lifestyle factors. Studies investigating this suffer from significant methodological issues, and a definitive causal link remains unproven. Based on limited evidence, prescribers may wish to consider calcium supplementation in transgender teens receiving puberty blockers, and may wish to avoid oral estrogens in transgender girls beginning hormone therapy.
Compared to their cisgender peers, transgender adolescents who take puberty blockers are less likely to choose to have biological children, but puberty blockers do not permanently affect fertility.
Widely cited statistics around children growing out of gender dysphoria (“desistance”) as they grow older are based on highly unreliable data. Surprisingly, based on current evidence, we cannot reasonably guess the rate at which this happens. Regardless, desistance rates are not an argument for or against the use of puberty blockers. It is important to respect children’s wishes and autonomy, and to find the best way to support them as their gender identity develops, without imposing the idea that either a transgender or a cisgender gender identity is a bad outcome.
Very few patients who receive puberty blockers experience regret. In broader context, for the small minority of adult transgender patients who report feeling regret after undergoing hormone therapy or surgery, a common reason for that is a lack of social acceptance.
More high-quality research is urgently needed in this field. In particular, the effects of puberty blockers on IQ and cognitive development, bone outcomes, and desistance remain understudied subjects. Randomised controlled trials on puberty blockers are not available, and likely cannot be performed for both practical and ethical reasons. This should not be seen as a reason to discard all other research on the subject, or to label their use as experimental, as it is a standard of evidence that can never be met.
Puberty blockers are extremely difficult for patients to access in many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and parts of Europe. Several countries have recently banned their use, or further restricted it significantly. This review provides further evidence supporting WPATH, EPATH, USPATH, AsiaPATH, CPATH, AusAPTH, PATHA, the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Medical Association in condemning recent attempts to bar transgender teens from receiving gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers. To better support gender dysphoric children, barriers of access should instead be reduced where possible.
Wisconsin DOC Ordered to Provide the Surgery, Too
by Matt Clarke and Chuck Sharman
In a federal court filing on January 31, 2022, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) indicated that a transgender prisoner in Texas could be cleared for gender conforming surgery (GCS) as early as March 2022. If that happens, the prisoner, Cristian Noel “Cristina” Iglesis, 47, will become the third prisoner in the U.S. ever to undergo the procedure—unless she is beaten by another prisoner also diagnosed with severe gender dysphoria in Wisconsin, whose Department of Corrections (DOC) was ordered to provide GCS by another federal court on December 8, 2020.
That DOC prisoner, Mark A. “Nichole Rose” Campbell, now 50, won a bench trial held in March 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to determine whether she had a serious medical need for the surgery and, if so, whether the defendant DOC officials were deliberately indifferent to that need by repeatedly denying her requests for the procedure.
According to the testimony of DOC’s gender dysphoria consultant, Cynthia Osborne, Campbell suffers from the most severe form of gender dysphoria, anatomic gender dysphoria, which means the presence of male genitalia causes severe mental anguish that puts her at substantial risk of self-mutilation or suicide.
Based on Osborne’s recommendations after a 2012 examination, Campbell began receiving mental health treatment and hormone therapy. Osborne conducted another examination in 2014, reporting that Campbell was a good candidate for GCS, but that optimizing hormone therapy should be attempted first. This was done, yet two years later, Campbell was still being denied surgery because it was against DOC policy.
The defendants contested whether the Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People published by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) should be used to determine the medical necessity of GCS.
But the Court noted that Osborne uses the standards and DOC itself purports to follow them. It further found that those standards “represented the consensus of qualified medical professionals regarding the appropriateness of various treatments for gender dysphoria, including sex reassignment surgery.”
The central issue raised by DOC was whether it was possible for a person to live one year in the gender role of a female—a WPATH standard requirement—while incarcerated in a male prison. But prison officials also had concerns that prevented Campbell from being transferred to a female prison before the operation.
Swatting away that Catch-22, the Court noted Osborne’s testimony that the requirement of a year of “real-life experience was a common-sense practice based more on tradition than any science.” In a scholarly article she published, Osborne contended it was possible for a trans-woman to live in a woman’s gender role within a male prison. The Court then determined that neither issue precluded the surgery.
It also found that, for the severe unremitting anatomical gender dysphoria from which Campbell suffers, GCS is the only effective treatment. There was no question that, at least since Osborne’s 2014 report, defendants were aware of this. Nonetheless, they continued to deny Campbell’s requests because “DOC policy flatly prohibited sex reassignment surgery.” Therefore, the Court found that defendants were deliberately indifferent to Campbell’s serious medical needs in violation of her Eighth Amendment rights.
A previous appellate court decision in the case had already granted defendants qualified immunity, so damages were not at issue. The court said it would issue an injunction, ordering defendants to have Campbell assessed for and provided GCS, though not breast augmentation, voice therapy or electrolysis, since Campbell presented no expert testimony as to those procedures. Campbell was represented by Madison attorneys Iana Vladimirova, Joseph S. Dedrich, Natalia S. Kruse, and Thomas Patrick Heneghan of Hush Blackwell. See: Campbell v. Kallas , 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230117 (W.D. Wis.).
“Self-castration or Suicide Is Always There”
Iglesias, the BOP prisoner, had an even older diagnosis of gender dysphoria, dating back to 1994. After filing her suit pro se in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the state where she was then incarcerated, her complaint survived a preliminary screening in 2019. See: Iglesias v. True , 403 F. Supp. 3d 680 (S.D. Ill. 2019).
Iglesias was then appointed counsel, who filed an amended complaint that also survived the Court’s preliminary screening review. See: Iglesias v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201281 (S.D. Ill.).
Iglesias next filed for a preliminary injunction (PI) on April 19, 2021, seeking to force BOP to provide GCS and reassign her to a women’s prison, where she would be safe from the repeated attacks she had endured during two decades of intermittent incarceration in BOP facilities for men. Thirteen days later, on May 2, 2021, BOP transferred her to the Federal Medical Center at Carswell, Texas, which is a female facility.
Taking up the PI motion, the Court noted that BOP relied heavily on Campbell v. Kallas , 936 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2019), which held there was no deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical needs so long as some treatment was provided, such as hormone therapy in Iglesias’ case. Yet in that same ruling, the Court noted, the Seventh Circuit also held that “[d]enying a specific therapy in a particular case might amount to a constitutional violation.”
Moreover, the Court said, BOP had stonewalled Iglesias’ requests for surgery, hormone therapy and even reassignment to a women’s prison for years, during which time the prisoner made 12 suicide attempts. Iglesias herself testified that should GCS not happen, “self-castration or suicide is always there.” Testimony was also taken from an expert witness for Iglesias, Dr. Randi Ettner, immediate past president of WPATH, who said that Iglesias had met the organization’s criteria for recommending surgery by:
• having a well-documented diagnosis of gender dysphoria;
• being on hormones for years;
• living in her role for more than 12 months and being above the age of majority; and
• having any medical or mental health issues well controlled.
As a result, the Court said Iglesias’ complaint was likely to succeed on its merits, clearing the hurdle to obtain a PI. It ordered BOP to show cause by January 24, 2022, why it should not grant Iglesias’ request for surgery. See: Iglesias v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245517 (S.D. Ill.).
The deadline came and went, with no word from BOP, leading Iglesias and her attorneys— Josh Blecher-Cohen with the ACLU of Illinois, Angela M. Povolish of the Carbondale firm of Feirich Mager Green Ryan, Taylor Brown of the ACLU, as well as Katherine D. Hundt, Courtney Block, Frank Battaglia and Kevin Warner of the Chicago firm of Winston & Strawn LLP—to conclude that the agency was going to deny it.
That’s when BOP abruptly shared the recommendation of its Transgender Executive Council (TEC) that Iglesias receive GCS before her scheduled release at the end of 2022. U.S. Attorneys defending the agency said that “assuming [Iglesias] does not engage in behavior that would prevent her from continued placement in a female facility and assuming further that no other reasons develop that would make gender confirmation surgery inappropriate, the TEC does expect plaintiff to be referred to a surgeon at the appropriate time.”
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the use of public funds to provide sex reassignment surgery has provided red meat to some conservative news sites, especially in the case of Campbell, who is serving a 34-year sentence earned in 2007 for a conviction on a First Degree Sexual Assault charge involving her 10-year-old daughter. It could reportedly take up to a year for her to be assessed for surgery because Wisconsin has only one surgeon performing the procedure.
Two other prisoners have already received GCS: Shiloh Heavenly Quine in California in 2017 and Adree Edmo in Idaho in July 2020.
Additional sources: Christian Post, The Hill, Idaho State Journal, Los Angeles Times, Cannon Falls Republican Eagle
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Subscribe today
Already a subscriber? Login
Iglesias v. fed. bureau of prisons.
Year | 2021 |
---|---|
Cite | 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245517 (S.D. Ill.) |
Level | District Court |
Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
Year | 2020 |
---|---|
Cite | 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230117 (W.D. Wis.) |
Level | District Court |
Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
Year | 2020 |
---|---|
Cite | 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201281 (S.D. Ill.). |
Level | District Court |
Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
Year | 2019 |
---|---|
Cite | 403 F. Supp. 3d 680 (S.D. Ill. 2019) |
Level | District Court |
Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
District Court Edition | F.Supp.3d |
Meredith Rizzo
It wasn't until Deborah Svoboda dated someone who is trans that she understood how little she understood about being transgender. "I realized how very misunderstood they were, including by me," she says. And that comes from someone who identifies as queer and has lived and worked in diverse communities.
So Svoboda decided to use her skills as a multimedia journalist to learn about one aspect of transition: sex reassignment surgery. Surgery is something that people tend to fixate on. The "Did she or didn't she?" aspect of it even came up in Vanity Fair's coverage of Caitlyn Jenner's transition .
'call me caitlyn': bruce jenner reveals new name.
Svoboda put flyers up in LGBT health clinics in the San Francisco area, asking people if they would be willing to let her document the experience. Jamie Nelson, who says he identifies as a transgender male who is queer, and Jetta'Mae Carlisle, who says she identifies as a straight woman, said yes. Both were preparing to have surgery, and were willing to let Svoboda follow them through the process.
"They also both wanted to tell their stories for the purpose of breaking down fears and misunderstandings around trans people," says Svoboda, who lives in Emeryville, Calif. "I could see that these two people both had an incredible amount of courage and openness that I knew we needed to tell such an intimate and in-depth story."
She met with Nelson and Carlisle for almost a year. As the surgery dates grew closer, she met with them daily to photograph, video or gather audio. Carlisle flew to Phoenix for her surgery, "So I drove there and spent a week documenting her experience, physical and emotional."
In the end, Svoboda says, she learned an incredible amount. "The lengths they have had to go through in order to be themselves inspire me," she says. "They've been forced to ask for what they need, to face criticism, rejection and even degradation. They've gone through pain and confusion and still they find a way to hold their heads up and say, 'This is who I am.' "
The video originally appeared on KQED's State of Health blog.
The lawsuit was filed on wednesday by families and medical providers against senate bill 14 before it goes into effect on sept. 1, by nbcdfw staff , acacia coronado and jim vertuno • published july 13, 2023 • updated on july 14, 2023 at 12:15 pm.
A lawsuit brought about by Texas families and medical providers aims to block a bill that bans gender-affirming procedures for minors, arguing it violates parental rights and discriminates against transgender teens.
The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday in Travis County, legal representatives announced. It seeks a temporary injunction to block Senate Bill 14 which was signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in June and is set to go into effect on Sept. 1. The Associated Press said they reached out to Abbott's office but he has not responded.
Streaming 24/7: Watch NBC 5 local news and weather for free wherever you are
SB14 bans transition-related care for transgender minors. This includes treatment for gender transitioning and gender reassignment. Various surgeries and medical prescriptions, such as hormone therapies and puberty blockers, are also detailed in the bill.
Texas children who already started such care are required to be weaned off in a "medically appropriate" manner.
Get top local stories in DFW delivered to you every morning. Sign up for NBC DFW's News Headlines newsletter.
Behind the lawsuit are five Texas families, three medical professionals, and two organizations that represent various people across the state.
The families have transgender children between the ages of 9 and 16, who cite irreparable harm if the bill goes into effect. Concerns stem from mental health to bodily autonomy.
"As a parent, I don't want to see my child suffer and don't understand why the state government would try to strip away my ability to seek the best possible health care for my child," said Lazaro Loe, father of a transgender girl, in a statement. "If SB14 goes into effect and Luna loses access to this health care, I am deeply concerned about the anxiety, depression, and suicidality that she will face. Her happiness, health, autonomy, and independence would be stripped away by this cruel legislation; and we likely would be forced to leave our home here in Texas."
Politics from around the world.
The lawsuit argues that the ban will have devastating consequences for transgender teens in Texas, who they say will be unable to obtain critical medical treatment recommended by their physicians and parents.
According to the lawsuit, many transgender teens will "face the whiplash of losing their necessary medical treatment and experiencing unwanted and unbearable changes to their body."
"I am gravely concerned about my patient's ability to survive, much less thrive if SB 14 takes effect," Richard Ogden Roberts, a doctor who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said on behalf of himself and his patients.
Roberts, who has cared for over 200 gender-diverse and transgender young patients and their families, said in the lawsuit he and his colleagues worry they will be forced to choose between upholding their medical oaths or upholding the state's new law.
As more states have moved to enforce bans, families of transgender youth are increasingly forced to travel out of state for the care they need.
Every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, has opposed the bans and supported medical care for youth when administered appropriately. Opponents of gender-affirming care say there's no solid proof of purported benefits, cite widely discredited research and say children shouldn't make life-altering decisions they might later regret.
Similar lawsuits have surfaced across various states in the U.S., which also have bills that seek to ban gender-affirming care.
There are 20 states that have adopted laws banning youth gender-affirming care, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The Associated Press reports half of those laws are not in effect, either because they were passed so recently that they haven't yet kicked in or, in the case of Arkansas, Indiana and Kentucky, because enforcement has been put on hold by courts.
A judge in June also blocked enforcement of Tennessee's ban, but an appeals court this month said it can take effect for now, at least.
Last year, Abbott became the first governor to order the investigation of families who were receiving care. The investigations were later halted by a Texas judge.
When legislators returned to Austin in January for the state's biennial legislative session, they created SB 14, which codified a ban on transgender care for minors into law.
The transgender care ban was one of the most divisive issues of this year's Texas legislative session. Transgender rights activists disrupted the Texas House with protests from the chamber gallery, which led to state police forcing demonstrators to move outside the building.
Children's hospitals around the country have faced harassment and threats of violence for providing such care. Suspended Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who faces a Senate impeachment trial in September on allegations of corruption and misuse of office, had previously opened investigations into transgender care at an Austin hospital.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Nature Reviews Urology volume 8 , pages 274–282 ( 2011 ) Cite this article
4010 Accesses
153 Citations
41 Altmetric
Metrics details
This article has been updated
Gender reassignment (which includes psychotherapy, hormonal therapy and surgery) has been demonstrated as the most effective treatment for patients affected by gender dysphoria (or gender identity disorder), in which patients do not recognize their gender (sexual identity) as matching their genetic and sexual characteristics. Gender reassignment surgery is a series of complex surgical procedures (genital and nongenital) performed for the treatment of gender dysphoria. Genital procedures performed for gender dysphoria, such as vaginoplasty, clitorolabioplasty, penectomy and orchidectomy in male-to-female transsexuals, and penile and scrotal reconstruction in female-to-male transsexuals, are the core procedures in gender reassignment surgery. Nongenital procedures, such as breast enlargement, mastectomy, facial feminization surgery, voice surgery, and other masculinization and feminization procedures complete the surgical treatment available. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health currently publishes and reviews guidelines and standards of care for patients affected by gender dysphoria, such as eligibility criteria for surgery. This article presents an overview of the genital and nongenital procedures available for both male-to-female and female-to-male gender reassignment.
The management of gender dysphoria consists of a combination of psychotherapy, hormonal therapy, and surgery
Psychiatric evaluation is essential before gender reassignment surgical procedures are undertaken
Gender reassignment surgery refers to the whole genital, facial and body procedures required to create a feminine or a masculine appearance
Sex reassignment surgery refers to genital procedures, namely vaginoplasty, clitoroplasty, labioplasty, and penile–scrotal reconstruction
In male-to-female gender dysphoria, skin tubes formed from penile or scrotal skin are the standard technique for vaginal construction
In female-to-male gender dysphoria, no technique is recognized as the standard for penile reconstruction; different techniques fulfill patients' requests at different levels, with a variable number of surgical technique-related drawbacks
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
195,33 € per year
only 16,28 € per issue
Buy this article
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Change history, 26 april 2011.
In the version of this article initially published online, the statement regarding the frequency of male-to-female transsexuals was incorrect. The error has been corrected for the print, HTML and PDF versions of the article.
Meyer, W. 3rd. et al . The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's standards of care for gender identity disorders, sixth version. World Professional Association for Transgender Health [online] , (2001).
Google Scholar
Bakker, A., Van Kesteren, P., Gooren, L. & Bezemer, P. The prevalence of transsexualism in The Netherlands. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 87 , 237–238 (1993).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Selvaggi, G. et al . Gender identity disorder: general overview and surgical treatment for vaginoplasty in male-to-female transsexuals. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 116 , 135e–145e (2005).
Article Google Scholar
Benjamin, H. (ed.) The Transsexual Phenomenon (Julian Press Inc., New York, 1966).
World Professional Association for Transgender Health [online] , (2010).
Zhou, J. N., Hofman, M. A., Gooren, L. J. & Swaab, D. F. A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Nature 378 , 68–70 (1995).
Kruijver, F. P. et al . Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 85 , 2034–2041 (2000).
Swaab, D. F., Chun, W. C., Kruijver, F. P., Hofman, M. A. & Ishuina, T. A. Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 511 , 75–105 (2002).
Garcia-Falgueras, A. & Swaab, D. F. A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. Brain 131 , 3115–3117 (2008).
Cohen-Kettenis, P. & Kuiper, B. Transseksualiteit en psychotherapie [Dutch]. Tijdschr. Psychoth. 3 , 153–166 (1984).
Kuiper, B. & Cohen-Kettenis, P. Sex reassignment surgery: a study of 141 Dutch transsexuals. Arch. Sex. Behav. 17 , 439–457 (1988).
Kanhai, R. C., Hage, J. J., Karim, R. B. & Mulder, J. W. Exceptional presenting conditions and outcome of augmentation mammoplasty in male-to female transsexuals. Ann. Plast. Surg. 43 , 476–483 (1999).
Kanagalingm, J. et al . Cricothyroid approximation and subluxation in 21 male-to-female transsexuals. Laryngoscope 115 , 611–618 (2005).
Bouman, M. Laparoscopic assisted colovaginoplasty. Presented at the 2009 biennial World Professional Association for Transgender Health meeting, Oslo.
Rubin, S. O. Sex-reassignment surgery male-to-female. Review, own results and report of a new technique using the glans penis as a pseudoclitoris. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. Suppl. 154 , 1–28 (1993).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Fang, R. H., Chen, C. F. & Ma, S. A new method for clitoroplasty in male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 89 , 679–682 (1992).
Selvaggi, G. et al . Genital sensitivity in sex reassignment surgery. Ann. Plast. Surg. 58 , 427–433 (2007).
Watanayusakul, S. SRS procedures. The Suporn Clinic [online] , (2010).
Melzer, T. Managing complications of male to female surgery. Presented at the 2007 World Professional Association for Transgender Health biennial meeting, Chicago.
Gilleard, O., Qureshi, M., Thomas, P. & Bellringer, J. Urethral bleeding following male to female gender reassignmetn surgery. Presented at the 2009 World Professional Association for Transgender Health biennial meeting, Oslo.
Beckley, I., Thomas, P. & Bellringer, J. Aetiology and management of recto-vaginal fistulas following male to female gender reassignment. Presented at 2008 EAU section of genitourinary surgeons and the EAU section of andrological urology meeting, Madrid.
Monstrey, S. et al . Chest wall contouring surgery in female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals: a new algorithm. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 121 , 849–859 (2008).
Mueller, A. & Gooren, L. Hormone-related tumors in transsexuals receiving treatment with cross-sex hormones. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 159 , 197–202 (2008).
Selvaggi, G., Elander, A. & Branemark, R. Penile epithesis: preliminary study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 126 , 265e–266e (2010).
Selvaggi, G. & Elander, A. Penile reconstruction/formation. Curr. Opin. Urol. 18 , 589–597 (2008).
Gilbert, D. A., Jordan, G. H., Devine, C. J. Jr & Winslow, B. H. Microsurgical forearm “cricket bat-transformer” phalloplasty. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 90 , 711–716 (1992).
Bettocchi, C., Ralph, D. J. & Pryor, J. P. Pedicled pubic phalloplasty in females with gender dysphoria. BJU Int. 95 , 120–124 (2005).
Monstrey, S. et al . Penile reconstruction: is the radial forearm flap really the standard technique? Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 124 , 510–518 (2009).
Selvaggi, G. et al . Donor-site morbidity of the radial forearm free flap after 125 phalloplasties in gender identity disorder. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 118 , 1171–1177 (2006).
Hoebeke, P. et al . Impact of sex reassignment surgery on lower urinary tract function. Eur. Urol. 47 , 398–402 (2005).
Agrawal, V. & Ralph, D. An audit of implanted penile prosteses in the UK. BJU Int. 98 , 393–395 (2006).
Hoebeke, P. B. et al . Erectile implants in female-to-male transsexuals: our experience in 129 patients. Eur. Urol. 57 , 334–340 (2010).
Vesely, J. et al . New technique of total phalloplasty with reinnervated latissimus dorsi myocutaneous free flap in female-to-male transsexuals. Ann. Plast. Surg. 58 , 544–550 (2007).
Selvaggi, G. et al . Scrotal reconstruction in female-to-male transsexuals: a novel scrotoplasty. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 123 , 1710–1718 (2009).
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Gender Surgery Unit, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, 179–183 Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8QZ, UK
Gennaro Selvaggi & James Bellringer
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
G. Selvaggi and J. Bellringer contributed equally to the research, discussions, writing, reviewing, and editing of this article.
Correspondence to James Bellringer .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Selvaggi, G., Bellringer, J. Gender reassignment surgery: an overview. Nat Rev Urol 8 , 274–282 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2011.46
Download citation
Published : 12 April 2011
Issue Date : May 2011
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2011.46
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
A bibliometric and visualisation analysis on the research of female genital plastic surgery based on the web of science core collection database.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (2024)
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (2023)
International Journal of Impotence Research (2021)
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
In a first, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has been ordered to secure gender-affirming surgery for a transgender prisoner.
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ordered the bureau on Monday to undergo a nationwide search for a qualified surgeon to perform the surgery for the inmate, Cristina Nichole Iglesias.
The directive will bring Iglesias — who has been imprisoned since 1994 for threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction — a step closer to receiving the procedure, which she has been fighting to get for six years, the last three in the courts.
“I am hopeful that I will finally get the care I need to live my life fully as the woman I am,” Iglesias said in a statement provided to NBC News by her legal representative, the American Civil Liberties Union. “BOP has denied me gender-affirming surgery for years — and keeps raising new excuses and putting new obstacles in my way. I am grateful that the court recognized the urgency of my case and ordered BOP to act.”
Monday's court order could pave the way for other transgender prisoners to receive gender-affirming surgeries as well. LGBTQ advocates have called these procedures "life-saving," and Monday's decision could bolster the Biden administration's goal of improving the lives of incarcerated transgender people.
A 2015 report by the Justice Department estimated that 35 percent of trans prisoners surveyed had reported being sexually assaulted behind bars within the last year. Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Prisons was required to “use biological sex as the initial determination” for housing trans prisoners.
A 2020 NBC News investigation that tracked 45 states and Washington, D.C., found that out of 4,890 transgender inmates in state prisons, only 15 were confirmed to being housed according to their lived gender.
In January, the Biden administration restored Obama-era guidelines for federal prisons to house transgender inmates by their gender identity "when appropriate." The guidelines also require prison staff to refer to trans inmates by their lived name and pronouns.
The ACLU estimates that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has more than 1,200 transgender people currently in its custody.
Iglesias has been in federal prison for roughly 28 years and currently lives in a bureau-run residential re-entry center in Florida, according to the ACLU.
Although she identified herself as a woman upon her incarceration, she has been housed in men's facilities for over two decades, and during that time has experienced physical and sexual violence, the ACLU said. In May, her lawsuit to seek gender-affirming surgery resulted in her being one of the few transgender federal prisoners moved to a facility that corresponds with her gender identity.
Iglesias then became the first transgender prisoner to be evaluated for gender-affirming surgery, which the Bureau of Prisons recommended in January. However, the ACLU said in a statement that the bureau had "sought to postpone any referral to a surgeon for months."
In Monday's ruling , Judge Nancy Rosenstengel slammed the prison bureau's handling of Iglesias' case and compared its "tactics" to a game of “whack-a-mole.” Rosenstengel also ordered the bureau to provide the court with weekly updates and a detailed plan to ensure that Iglesias gets the surgery before her release in December.
The Bureau of Prisons told NBC News in a statement that it does not comment on “pending litigation or matters subject to legal proceedings,” nor on “the conditions of confinement for any individual or group of inmates.”
“For years, Cristina has fought to receive the health care the Constitution requires," Joshua Blecher-Cohen, an ACLU of Illinois staff attorney who represents Ms. Iglesias, said in a statement.
"The court’s order makes clear that she needs gender-affirming surgery now and that BOP cannot justify its failure to provide this medically necessary care," he said. "We hope this landmark decision will help secure long-overdue health care for Cristina — and for the many other transgender people in federal custody who have been denied gender-affirming care.”
Follow NBC Out on Twitter , Facebook & Instagram
Matt Lavietes is a reporter for NBC Out.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
On one computer, there was a text document on the screen titled, "The Omnivore Trials: a rehabilitation for rat like people," as well as "intimate details" about things he "could have only known ...
The notes also talked about converting the family from omnivores to "ezequiels." Furthermore, there were references to conducting surgery on the Campbells. In another video, Ezequiel was seen sitting naked in Brittany's chair. Eventually, the couple got a restraining order against him.
The Omnivore Trials: A Rehabilitation For Ratlike People. A spritual successor and meta-sequel to the 1995 video game 'Drowned God: Conspiracy of The Ages' ... he closes their innocent tabs and slowly begins to search for more and more strange and unhinged things like 'Gender Reassignment Surgery' and 'Where to buy a hospital gurney ...
Zayas' notes were titled "The Omnivore Trials: A rehabilitation of Ratlike people." The detailed observations tipped off the Campbells to the fact that this man had probably been living in their home for far longer than they could imagine. But the computer contained two more disturbing files. One was a video that Zayas had recorded as he sat ...
"The Omnivore Trials: a rehabilitation for rat like people." ... He had been looking up videos on how to surgically remove an arm, he looked up how to do gender reassignment surgery." ...
On September 20, 2019, the family found a man inside their home and the situation just got scarier by the second. Dad James, 36 - who is in the US Navy - grabbed a sledgehammer for protection ...
"Sex reassignment surgery confers no objective advantage in terms of social rehabilitation, although it remains subjectively satisfying to those who have rigorously pursued a trial period and ...
Gender reassignment costs vary based on each person's needs and desires; expenses often range between $7,000 and $50,000 (in 2014), although costs may be much greater depending upon the type (gender reconstructive surgeries versus cosmetic procedures) and number of surgeries as well as where in the world they are performed [source: AP].
A US study showed that from 2000 to 2011, the rate of surgical sex reassignment measures among trans persons rose from 72% to 83.9% ().These data move the question of the effectiveness of such operations increasingly into the focus of clinical attention and awareness (8- 11).In the context of evidence-based medicine, the consensus is now that the success of medical procedures should not be ...
Fertility Preservation for Transgender Individuals
Transgender people experience distress due to gender incongruence (i.e., a discrepancy between their gender identity and sex assigned at birth). Gender-affirming hormone treatment (GAHT) is a part of gender reassignment treatment. The therapeutic goals of the treatment are to develop the physical characteristics of the affirmed gender as far as possible.
His confidence in this new approach is the result of nearly three decades of expertise and innovation in SRS and urogenital reconstructive surgery, which includes 600 male-to-female vaginoplasties, 900 female-to-male metoidioplasties, 300 female-to-male phalloplasties, and the co-development of a penile disassembly technique for epispadias repair.
A later study at the same British gender identity clinic, Carmichael et al. (2021), received widespread media coverage in the United Kingdom following its mixed findings.It followed 44 gender dysphoric adolescents who received puberty blockers. CGAS scores were higher than the 2015 study at baseline, and showed slower and more modest improvement.
Wisconsin DOC Ordered to Provide the Surgery, Too. by Matt Clarke and Chuck Sharman. In a federal court filing on January 31, 2022, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) indicated that a transgender prisoner in Texas could be cleared for gender conforming surgery (GCS) as early as March 2022. If that happens, the prisoner, Cristian Noel "Cristina ...
Jamie Nelson, who says he identifies as a transgender male who is queer, and Jetta'Mae Carlisle, who says she identifies as a straight woman, said yes. Both were preparing to have surgery, and ...
This includes treatment for gender transitioning and gender reassignment. Various surgeries and medical prescriptions, such as hormone therapies and puberty blockers, are also detailed in the bill.
Gender incongruence is a newer term to describe the incongruence between a person's gender identity (GI) and the assigned gender at birth [3, 4]. GI reflects a complex interplay of biological, psychological, environmental, and cultural factors. ... cross-sectional studies, and randomized controlled trials. Previous guidelines, review articles ...
Gender dysphoria
Introduction. Gender reassignment surgery is indicated for the treatment of gender dysphoria. Patients who suffer gender dysphoria feel that their birth gender is somehow 'wrong' and seek to adopt ...
April 21, 2022, 1:29 PM PDT. By Matt Lavietes. In a first, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has been ordered to secure gender-affirming surgery for a transgender prisoner. A federal judge in the U.S ...
History Of Gender Reassignment Surgery : the trials of apollo book one the hidden oracle amazon com - Nov 06 2022 web the trials of apollo book one the hidden oracle audible audiobook unabridged rick riordan author robbie daymond narrator listening library publisher 0 more 4 7 4 7 out of 5 stars 22 426 ratings
Kamala Harris was elected the attorney general of California in 2010, becoming the first woman, the first Indian American, and the first South Asian American to hold the office in the state's history. She took office on January 3, 2011, and would be re-elected in 2014 to serve until she resigned on January 3, 2017, to take her seat in the United States Senate.