Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators: A Potential Option For Non-Binary Gender-Affirming Hormonal Care?

Gender dysphoria describes the distress associated with having a gender identity that differs from one’s birth-assigned sex. To relieve this distress, transgender, and gender diverse (henceforth, trans) individuals commonly undergo medical transition involving hormonal treatments. Current hormonal treatment guidelines cater almost exclusively for those who wish to transition from male to female or vice versa. In contrast, there is a dearth of hormonal options for those trans individuals who identify as non-binary and seek an androgynous appearance that is neither overtly male nor female. Though prolonged puberty suppression with gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) could in theory be gender-affirming by preventing the development of unwanted secondary sex characteristics, this treatment option would be limited to pre- or peri-pubertal adolescents and likely have harmful effects. Here, we discuss the theoretical use of Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) for non-binary people assigned male at birth (AMAB) who are seeking an androgynous appearance through partial feminization without breast growth. Given their unique range of pharmacodynamic effects, SERMs may represent a potential gender-affirming treatment for this population, but there is a lack of knowledge regarding their use and potentially adverse effects in this context.

LGBT testimony and the limits of trust

In, ‘Forever young: the ethics of ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) for non-binary adults,’ Notini et al discuss the risks, harms and benefits of treating non-binary patients via identity-affirming OPS. Notini et al’s article makes a strong case for OPS’s permissibility, and their conclusion will not be disputed here. Instead, I directly focus on issues that their article addressed only indirectly. This article will use a hypothetical case study to show that while Notini et al’s ethical conclusion might be spot on, that perhaps the method they took to get there was superfluous. If the medical community is to take LGBT testimony seriously (as they should) then it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care. Assuming the patient is informed and competent, then only the patient can make this assessment, because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits. Moreover, taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related paediatric care.

Timing of Puberty Suppression and Surgical Options for Transgender Youth

OBJECTIVES Puberty suppression (PS) is a cornerstone of treatment in youth experiencing gender dysphoria. In this study, we aim to inform prescribing professionals on the long-term effects of PS treatment on the development of sex characteristics and surgical implications. METHODS Participants received PS according to the Endocrine Society guideline at Tanner 2 or higher. Data were collected from adolescents who received PS between 2006 and 2013 and from untreated transgender controls. Data collection pre- and post-PS and before surgery included physical examination and surgical information. RESULTS In total, 300 individuals (184 transgender men and 116 transgender women) were included. Of these, 43 individuals started PS treatment at Tanner 2/3, 157 at Tanner 4/5, and 100 used no PS (controls). Breast development was significantly less in transgender men who started PS at Tanner 2/3 compared with those who started at Tanner 4/5 and controls. Mastectomy was more frequently omitted or less invasive after PS. In transgender women, the mean penile length was significantly shorter in the PS groups compared with controls (by 4.8 cm [Tanner 2/3] and 2.1 cm [Tanner 4/5]). As a result, the likelihood of undergoing intestinal vaginoplasty was increased (odds ratio = 84 [Tanner 2/3]; odds ratio = 9.8 [Tanner 4/5]). CONCLUSIONS PS reduces the development of sex characteristics in transgender adolescents. As a result, transgender men may not need to undergo mastectomy, whereas transgender women may require an alternative to penile inversion vaginoplasty. These surgical implications should inform decision-making when initiating PS.