Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals' perspectives on research seeking genetic variants associated with TGD identities: a qualitative study

Transgender and gender diverse individuals' perspectives on discussions of fetal sex chromosomes in obstetrics care

In the past decade, prenatal cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA) has become ubiquitous as a screening tool for fetal aneuploidy and sex chromosomes. Healthcare provider (HCP) discussions and public perceptions of sex and gender uniquely impact transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals, and existing cfDNA guidelines lack recommendations regarding how to discuss sex and gender prenatally. The aim of this exploratory qualitative study was to examine TGD individuals' opinions regarding fetal sex chromosome disclosure sessions. Twelve semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with TGD individuals regarding their perspectives on the discussion of fetal sex chromosomes by HCPs within the prenatal setting. Interviews were coded and analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach, generating four major themes: (1) Current practices in prenatal care exclude gender diverse people; (2) HCPs' responsibility to de-gender discussions of sex chromosomes in prenatal care; (3) HCPs' responsibility to acknowledge gender diversity; and (4) HCPs' influence on societal perceptions of sex and gender. More guidance is needed from professional societies regarding best practices for HCP discussions of sex chromosomes, sex, and gender. Participants recommended HCPs educate patients about sex chromosomes and their relevance to health while avoiding the conflation of sex and gender terms. Additionally, there is an acute need for trans-inclusive prenatal healthcare. Ultimately, HCPs' and organizations are in a prime position to deconstruct rigid gender binaries and promote societal inclusion of TGD people.

Tumors, Treatments, and Trust: Cancer Characteristics, Outcomes, and Screening Uptake in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patients

BACKGROUND

More than 2.5 million adults in the United States identify as transgender or gender-diverse (TGD), but little data exist on cancer screening and care for this population. We examined cancer characteristics, screening adherence, genetic testing, and provider inclusive language for TGD patients with cancer.

METHODS

This single institution retrospective cohort study identified TGD patients with cancer between 2000 and 2022. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment, and screening data were collected, as well as data on gender-affirming care (GAC) and use of patients' personal pronouns in medical records. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to report outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty unique patients with 69 cancer diagnoses were included: 63.3% were transgender women, 21.7% transgender men, 6.7% nonbinary, and 8.3% were genderqueer. Sixty-five percent had a family history of cancer. Only 46.2% of those who met genetic testing criteria were referred. On review of recommended cancer screening, colorectal screening had the greatest uptake (62%), followed by breast (48.3%), lung (35.7%), cervical (33.3%), and prostate (32%); 8.5% of cancers were diagnosed on screening. Individuals with Medicare had reduced odds of screening uptake (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) versus private insurance. With respect to GAC, 73.3% used gender-affirming hormone therapy and 41% had gender-affirming surgery. After initiating GAC and asserting personal pronouns, 75% were referred to by incorrect name/pronouns in provider documentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our TGD cancer patient cohort had low rates of disease-specific cancer screening and inadequate genetic referrals. Many providers did not use appropriate patient names/pronouns. Provider and patient interventions are needed to ensure inclusive preventative and oncologic care for this marginalized population.

Queering genomics: How cisnormativity undermines genomic science

Over the past century, genetics and genomics ("genomics") have contributed significantly to our knowledge of human biology and disease. Genomics has also bolstered inaccurate and harmful arguments about "essential" differences between socially defined groups. These purported differences have reinforced class hierarchies and justified the mistreatment of groups such as Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color and/or people with disabilities. With this history in mind, we explore how genomics is used to reinforce scientifically unsound understandings of the relationship between two fundamental aspects of the human experience: sex and gender. We argue that imprecise, inaccurate practices for collecting data and conducting genomic research have adversely influenced genomic science and can contribute to the stigmatization of people whose sex and/or gender challenge binary expectations. The results have been to preclude transgender and intersex people from accessing high-quality, evidence-based healthcare and to hinder their participation in scientifically sound research. In this perspective, we use the lens of queer theory to render this situation more visible. First, we highlight the theoretical contributions queer theory can make to genomic science. Second, we examine practices in research and clinical genomics that exclude and stigmatize transgender and intersex people. Third, we highlight the ways that many current genomic research practices generate false conclusions that are used to support unjust public policies. We conclude by recommending ways that clinicians and researchers can-and should-harness the scientific, social, and cultural power of genomics to advance knowledge and improve lives across the spectra of sex and gender.

Policy and laboratory practice: How quality control procedures for genetic testing perpetuate biological essentialism and discrimination against transgender, gender diverse, and intersex people

Transgender, gender diverse, and intersex (TGDI) individuals face significant health disparities due to individual and systemic experiences of discrimination, impacting their access to healthcare. While clinical genetic testing has become increasingly accessible to the general population, the field of clinical genetics perpetuates a narrative of biological essentialism, which creates barriers for TGDI patients. Biological essentialism upholds that sex is a binary, fixed, and innate characteristic, a misconception that has been historically weaponized against the TGDI community in both individual experiences of discrimination and anti-trans legislation, among other systemic forms of oppression. Rejecting this discriminatory framework requires careful consideration of, and changes to, long-established practices that often go unquestioned, such as quality control metrics in genetic testing, in order to improve TGDI patients' outcomes and access to genetic services. The sex-check, comparing an individuals reported sex against their sex chromosomes, is an example of how laboratory genetics practices reinforce the narrative that sex is determined purely by chromosomal composition. Additionally, the sex-check "outs" TGDI people in clinical settings, creating a discriminatory and unsafe environment for these patients. Alternative quality control procedures and inclusive practices, such as clearer delineation of sex and gender on test requisition forms, are proposed to improve TGDI patient experiences. Genetic counselors and other clinical providers have a responsibility to address historical discrimination and advocate for changes to laboratory practice, so as to create affirming experiences for TGDI patients.

Transgender identity genetic research: Attitudes, opinions & beliefs among members of the transgender and gender diverse communities

Background: There is growing interest in investigating genetic explanations for transgender identity. In the spirit of a Community-Engaged Research Framework, which highlights the importance of involving community members who would be impacted by research throughout the entire research process, it is important for researchers to understand transgender and gender expansive individuals' views and concerns regarding the potential harms and benefits of transgender identity genetic research (TIGR). Aim: To evaluate the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs in the transgender and gender diverse communities toward TIGR Methods: We conducted an online survey study, asking 409 transgender and gender diverse individuals about their views regarding potential benefits and risks of TIGR. Results: Participants demonstrated a mixture of positive and negative opinions on the search for a genetic contribution to gender identity. Overall, there was a slight trend toward more positive views, with 71% agreeing or strongly agreeing that TIGR made them feel hopeful. Discussion: Given the varied and nuanced views held within the transgender and gender diverse communities toward transgender genetic research, we hope that this study can be one of many evaluating this topic, and that our findings, and those of future studies, can serve as a foundation for conducting transgender genetic research in a way that is in alignment with the ethos and priorities of the transgender and gender diverse communities.

Binge Drinking and Cannabis Use among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults in Michigan

Substance use rates are higher among transgender and gender-diverse people than cisgender people. Rates of substance use are also higher among young adults compared with other age groups. However, little research examines substance use among transgender and gender-diverse young adults. This study examines factors associated with binge drinking and cannabis use among transgender and gender-diverse young adults in Michigan. Participants (N = 78; ages 18-25) completed an online survey that included demographics and substance use and related characteristics. Race, stimulant misuse, and sedative misuse were associated with more frequent binge drinking. Older age and past-year pain reliever misuse were associated with less frequent cannabis use. Past-year stimulant use and using cannabis alone were associated with more frequent cannabis use. These findings suggest that additional marginalized identities may increase the risk for maladaptive substance use. Future research should examine substance use behaviors and correlates to inform interventions among this population.

The need for an intersectionality framework in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research has seen growing efforts to increase participation of communities that have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Marginalized racial and ethnic communities have received particular attention, toward the goal of improving the generalizability of scientific knowledge and promoting health equity. Against this backdrop, research has highlighted three key issues that could impede the promise of precision medicine research: issues surrounding (dis)trust and representation, challenges in translational efforts to improve health outcomes, and the need for responsive community engagement. Existing efforts to address these challenges have predominantly centered on single-dimensional demographic criteria such as race, ethnicity, or sex, while overlooking how these and additional variables, such as disability, gender identity, and socioeconomic factors, can confound and jointly impact research participation. We argue that increasing cohort diversity and the responsiveness of precision medicine research studies to community needs requires an approach that transcends conventional boundaries and embraces a more nuanced, multi-layered, and intersectional framework for data collection, analyses, and implementation. We draw attention to gaps in existing work, highlight how overlapping layers of marginalization might shape and substantiate one another and affect the precision-medicine research cycle, and put forth strategies to facilitate equitable advantages from precision-medicine research to diverse participants and internally heterogeneous communities.

Beyond the Binary: Moving the Radiology Workforce Toward Gender Inclusion, From the AJR Special Series on DEI

Gender representation in radiology has traditionally been evaluated and reported through binary models, accompanied by advocacy efforts focused on increasing the number of women in radiology. A paucity of data exists to understand the entire gender composition of the radiology workforce, including representation of people who are transgender and gender diverse. Further, little information exists on how to provide a supportive work environment for radiologists and support staff who identify as belonging to an underrepresented gender minority group. Intentional efforts to comprehensively understand the gender representation of the radiology workforce can help to establish a diverse workforce that is more representative of the patient populations that we serve, while promoting high-quality inclusive health care. Moving beyond gender binary thought and practices can help foster a culture of inclusion and belonging in radiology. This article provides practical steps that radiology practices can take to understand and support gender diversity beyond the binary in the radiology workforce, including providing definitions and inclusive language, understanding limitations of historical methods of gender data collection in radiology and relevant published literature, establishing best practices for future data collection, and developing a strategic vision with action items to create a more inclusive work environment.

Ethical challenges in autism genomics: Recommendations for researchers

Equitable and just genetic research and clinical translation require an examination of the ethical questions pertaining to vulnerable and marginalized communities. Autism research and advocate communities have expressed concerns over current practices of genetics research, urging the field to shift towards paradigms and practices that ensure benefits and avoid harm to research participants and the wider autistic community. Building upon a framework of bioethical principles, we provide the background for the concerns and present recommendations for ethically sustainable and justice-oriented genetic and genomic autism research. With the primary goal of enhancing the health, well-being, and autonomy of autistic persons, we make recommendations to guide priority setting, responsible research conduct, and informed consent practices. Further, we discuss the ethical challenges particularly pertaining to research involving highly vulnerable individuals and groups, such as those with impaired cognitive or communication ability. Finally, we consider the clinical translation of autism genetics studies, including the use of genetic testing. These guidelines, developed by an interdisciplinary working group comprising autistic and non-autistic individuals, will aid in leveraging the potential of genetics research to enhance the quality of life of autistic individuals and are widely applicable across stigmatized traits and vulnerable communities.

Anti-doping sciences, abjection and women's sport as a protected category

In this article we explore the relationships amongst anti-doping sciences, 'abjection,' and the protection of 'women's' sport. We introduce three novel concepts: 'abjection bias,' 'abjection potential,' and 'intersectional abjection,' as tools with the potential to provide greater nuance to understanding the context for these contentious issues in contemporary sport. The debate concerning participation in women's sport-especially elite sport-of people who do not fit within traditional definition of 'women' is increasingly fraught with acrimony with anti-doping sciences often recruited as arbitrator. With access to opportunities such as participation at the Olympic Games at stake, emotions run high in arguments that typically centre on inclusion of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) athletes on the one hand and protection of the women's category on the other. While sport theorists have begun the important work of identifying the roots of these problems deep within the structure of modern sport and society itself, they have hitherto paid little attention to the philosophical underpinnings of that structure. Through the lens of feminist critical analysis, we seek, in this paper, to understand the complex role of 'abjection' in framing the current debate in sport and in related anti-doping sciences. From a clear definition of abjection as a perceived existential threat due to violation of the status quo, we introduce the new concepts of 'abjection bias,' 'abjection potential,' and 'intersectional abjection' in order to understand and explain what in common parlance we might call 'gut reaction.' By looking at the few notable previous treatments of sport abjection and highlighting the historical connections between anti-doping sciences and efforts to protect the women's category, we demonstrate that this co-development is, in part, more easily understood in the context of 'abjection.' We conclude that the clarity gained can also help to shed light on current policy decision-making in relation to the question of protecting the women's sport category.

Improving gender-affirming care in genetic counseling: Using educational tools that amplify transgender and/or gender non-binary community voices

Transgender and/or gender non-binary (TGNB) individuals face significant health care disparities, including deficiencies in provider knowledge. To address this knowledge gap for genetic counselors, we developed, implemented, and analyzed an educational intervention on gender-affirming genetic counseling (GC) and care for TGNB patients. In partnership with the TGNB community, we designed a 5-module (length = 146 min ± 94 min) genetic counseling-targeted online learning program focused on gender-affirming care (Amplify). Content included elements of gender-affirming care, core components of gender-inclusive GC sessions, and cancer risk assessment/management. Video testimonials featuring TGNB individuals complemented learning within each module. Educational outcomes measured included comfort working with TGNB patients (n = 2 multiple choice questions (MCQs)), impact of education on knowledge (n = 25 MCQs), and clinical self-efficacy based on the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling competencies (n = 35 skills). Participants (n = 40), recruited through state and national GC organizations, completed all modules, and pre- and post-education/self-efficacy assessments. Pre-Amplify, 65% (n = 26/40) of participants endorsed feeling 'somewhat comfortable' working with TGNB patients. The average knowledge score was 77.6% (SD = 11.2%) with the lowest scores related to the gender affirmation process. After Amplify, overall knowledge improvement was statistically significant with an average 16.9% (p < 0.001) increase in score. Pre-Amplify, the average self-efficacy score was 78.4% (SD = 15.8%) with lowest scores seen in statements surrounding information gathering of family and medical histories. Post-Amplify, overall self-efficacy improvement was statistically significant with an average 13.8% (p < 0.001) increase in score. Linear regression did not identify an impact of practice specialty on participants' knowledge gains or self-efficacy. This study shows online modules are an effective form of gender-affirming care education for GCs. This intervention can positively improve the care practicing genetic counselors provide to patients and inform future decision-making about the development of gender-affirming care education for genetic counselors.

LGBTQ+ Perspectives on Conducting Genomic Research on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with LGBTQ+-identified individuals (n = 31) to explore the range of LGBTQ+ perspectives on genomic research using either sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) data. Most interviewees presumed that research would confirm genetic contributions to sexual orientation and gender identity. Primary hopes for such confirmation included validating LGBTQ+ identities, improved access to and quality of healthcare and other resources, and increased acceptance in familial, socio-cultural, and political environments. Areas of concern included threats of pathologizing and medicalizing LGBTQ+ identities and experiences, undermining reproductive rights, gatekeeping of health or social systems, and malicious testing or misuse of genetic results, particularly for LGBTQ+ youth. Overall, interviewees were divided on the acceptability of genomic research investigating genetic contributions to sexual orientation and gender identity. Participants emphasized researchers' ethical obligations to LGBTQ+ individuals and endorsed engagement with LGBTQ+ communities throughout all aspects of genomic research using SOGI data.