Perspectives on fertility preservation and parenthood among transgender youth and their parents

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the views of young people (YP) with gender dysphoria and their parents concerning fertility preservation and reproductive and life priorities.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study assessed knowledge of potential effects of treatments for gender dysphoria on fertility, current and future life priorities and preferences regarding future fertility/parenting options among YP and parents.

RESULTS

A total of 79 YP (81% assigned female at birth [AFAB], 19% assigned male at birth [AMAB], aged 12-18 years, 68% between ages 16 years and 18 years) and 73 parents participated. The top current life priority for YP among eight options was being in good health; the least important priority was having children. Anticipated life priorities 10 years from now were ranked similarly. Parents' rankings paralleled the YP responses; however, parents ranked having children as a significantly higher priority for AFAB compared with AMAB YP in 10 years. The majority of YP (66% AFAB, 67% AMAB) want to be a parent in the future. However, most do not envision having a biological child. A large majority (72% AFAB, 80% AMAB) were open to adoption. None of the YP surveyed pursued fertility preservation.

CONCLUSION

Fertility is a low current and future life priority for transgender YP. The majority of YP wish to become parents but are open to alternative strategies for building a family. These data may explain in part the reported low rates of fertility preservation among this population. Further studies are needed to assess if life priorities change over time.

Cradle-to-farm gate environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

A comprehensive national assessment of the sustainability of beef is being conducted by the U.S. beef industry. The first of 7 regions to be analyzed is Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. A survey and visits conducted throughout the region provided data on common production practices. From these data, representative ranch and feedyard operations were defined and simulated for the varying climate and soil conditions throughout the region using the Integrated Farm System Model. These simulations predicted environmental impacts of each operation including cradle-to-farm gate footprints for greenhouse gas emissions, fossil-based energy use, nonprecipitation water use, and reactive N loss. Individual ranch and feedyard operations were linked to form 28 representative production systems. A weighted average of the production systems was used to determine the environmental footprints for the region where weighting factors were developed based on animal numbers reported in the survey and agricultural statistics data. Along with the traditional beef production systems, Holstein steer and cull cow production from the dairy industry in the region were also modeled and included. The carbon footprint of all beef produced was 18.3 ± 1.7 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2e)/kg carcass weight (CW) with the range in individual production systems being 13 to 25 kg CO2e/kg CW. Energy use, water use, and reactive N loss were 51 ± 4.8 MJ/kg CW, 2,470 ± 455 L/kg CW, and 138 ± 12 g N/kg CW, respectively. The major portion of each footprint except water use was associated with the cow-calf phase; most of the nonprecipitation water use was attributed to producing feed for the finishing phase. These data provide a baseline for comparison as new technologies and strategies are developed and implemented to improve the sustainability of cattle production. Production information also will be combined with processing, marketing, and consumer data to complete a comprehensive life cycle assessment of beef.