Reproductive Organ Pathology of Individuals Undergoing Gender-Affirming Surgery

Words matter: The language of difference in human genetics

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

Microscopic Features of Vaginectomy Specimens from Transgender Patients

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to better understand the histologic changes in vaginectomy specimens in transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals after prolonged androgen administration.

METHODS

After obtaining institutional review board approval, we reviewed clinical records for all TGD individuals who underwent vaginal tissue resection at our institution between January 2002 and July 2020.

RESULTS

Ten transgender males who underwent vaginectomy for gender affirmation were identified. All patients had been assigned female gender at birth, and the median age at surgery was 41 years (range, 22-74 years). All 10 patients had received androgen for 2 to 10 years preoperatively. The corresponding pathology specimens were examined grossly and microscopically, including with immunohistochemical stains for NKX3.1, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), p501s, and androgen receptor (AR). No gross lesions were identified. Microscopically, prostate-like glands (8/10), urothelial metaplasia (4/10), and vaginal atrophy (8/10) were identified. Seven cases with prostate-like glands showed positive staining with PSA, NKX3.1, p501s, and AR in both squamous and glandular components.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognition of these androgen-related changes enables pathologist to avoid the overdiagnosis of dysplasia. Long-term follow-up is needed to thoroughly understand any potential future implications of these androgen-related changes.