Skip to main content
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics logoLink to Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
. 2025 Jul 28;42(9):3031–3039. doi: 10.1007/s10815-025-03579-2

Oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation in transgender and gender diverse individuals: a SWOT analysis

Julia E Barbe 1,✉, Federico Del Vento 1, Dehlia Moussaoui 2, Victoria L Crofts 1, Michal Yaron 1, Isabelle Streuli 1
PMCID: PMC12559567  PMID: 40721906

Abstract

Gender affirming hormone therapy may be used to relieve dysphoria among transgender or gender-diverse individuals. However, the long-term effects of these treatments on reproductive health remain uncertain. Before initiating hormone therapy, it is essential that patients are fully informed about the potential impact on their reproductive capabilities. Fertility preservation options, such as oocyte cryopreservation, should be offered to gender diverse individuals who were assigned female at birth. To assist healthcare providers in navigating the complexities of fertility preservation for these patients, we conducted a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis focused of oocyte cryopreservation. This analysis aims to ensure that decisions are both clinically sound and aligned with the patient's reproductive goals.

Keywords: Fertility preservation, Transgender and gender diverse individuals, Oocyte cryopreservation, Transgender health, SWOT analysis

Background

Transgender and gender diverse individuals (TGD) have a gender identity that differs from their sex assigned at birth. They may suffer from gender dysphoria, which is the psychological distress caused by the discrepancy between the sex assigned at birth and the individual’s gender [1]. The prevalence of gender incongruence in the population is difficult to determine but estimated between 0.5 and 1.3% [2, 3]. To relieve gender dysphoria, some individuals may seek gender affirming treatments (GAT) such as gender affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and surgery (GAS) as well as psychological and social support. The choice of hormonal treatment depends on the pubertal stage of the individual and current guidelines [4]. GnRH agonists reversibly block puberty from Tanner stage 2 [4] and, consequently, the development of unwanted and distressing secondary sexual characteristics. After this, most TGD individuals assigned female at birth opt for gender affirming hormonal treatments by initiating testosterone therapy to develop secondary sexual characteristics compatible with gender identity [5]. Furthermore, some TGD individuals may choose to undergo gender-affirming procedures, such as hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy, which consequently result in sterilization. Although these treatments may reduce dysphoria and improve quality of life [6, 7], they have an impact on future reproductive capacity [9, 10]. Therefore, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) recommend that health professionals address the potential effect of gender affirming treatments on fertility and counsel on fertility preservation options before initiating treatment [2, 11, 12].

Despite the widespread availability of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) and recommendations by expert societies, several studies have demonstrated that less than 5% of TGD individuals pursue fertility preservation (FP) when initiating GAT [13–16]. Notably, some research indicate that FP rates are even lower among TGD individuals assigned female at birth compared to those assigned male at birth [16].

To improve our counseling of TGD patients prior to initiating GAHT, which may adversely affect reproductive capacity, we used a comprehensive SWOT analysis of oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation in TGD individuals assigned female at birth. SWOT stands for Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats. It is a structured planning tool used to evaluate both internal and external factors influencing a project. When applied to clinical decision-making, internal factors are those that directly affect the patient. External factors encompass broader societal and medical considerations. To make the analysis more intuitive, we are changing the order to emphasize the broader societal and medical factors first, providing a contextual framework before delving into specific internal issues. This approach aims to clarify the advantages and drawbacks of fertility preservation for trans men by integrating both external and internal factors effectively (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

SWOT analysis of fertility preservation in transmasculine people. SWOT—an acronym of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats—is a structured planning method that evaluates the internal and external factors that are favorable or not in a project. Applied to clinical problems, SWOT gives a thorough analysis of a given clinical question and can help decision making and strategic planning

Threats

Structural barriers and discrimination

Despite WPATH providing guidelines for health professionals, there is no standardized protocol for fertility counseling, and comprehensive information on FP for families and individuals undergoing GAT is limited. FP is often divided into medical and non-medical categories. Medical FP typically applies to conditions like cancer or endometriosis, where fertility preservation is recommended prior to gonadotoxic treatments, and these cases are often more likely to be covered by insurance [18, 19]. In contrast, social FP (e.g., for delaying family planning) is categorized as non-medical, with limited or no coverage [20, 21]. This distinction creates uncertainty for TGD individuals, as there is no consensus on how FP is categorized in this context, despite the financial burden posed by the costs of gamete retrieval, storage, and future in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures [13, 14, 22, 23]. In regions with restrictions on storage duration, FP categorized as medical may qualify for extensions, further highlighting the impact of classification on access and affordability [25].

Discrimination within healthcare settings compounds these structural barriers. TGD individuals frequently experience stigma, a lack of knowledgeable providers, and limited support, which can lead to mistrust and avoidance of healthcare services [26, 27]. Many TGD individuals also face self-stigma when considering family planning, fearing discrimination for themselves and their future children. For example, a survey in Belgium found that 38% of TGD individuals who wanted to become parents feared discrimination against their child, while 32.6% feared discrimination against themselves as parents [22]. TGD individuals may also face stigma and discrimination from adoption agencies and social workers, discouraging many from pursuing adoption or fostering [28].

Inconclusive data on the effect of GAHT on reproductive capacity

There is a lack of conclusive data regarding the long-term effect of testosterone on reproductive capacity, as impact may vary depending on dosage, serum levels, duration of use, and age at GAHT initiation. Early research suggested that testosterone could induce a PCOS-like effect on ovaries [29–31] or cause ovarian cortex and stroma hyperplasia [33], though the reversibility of these changes remains unknown. Additionally, studies found that TGD individuals had a higher yield of mature oocytes collected after stimulation, possibly due to testosterone creating a PCOS-like environment that enhances follicular maturation [34, 35]. Current research suggests that there are no significant histopathological differences in ovarian tissue after testosterone therapy [31, 37, 38]. Furthermore, emerging data show that many TGD individuals can achieve pregnancy or successfully use their oocytes to initiate pregnancy, even after extended testosterone use [40, 41].

Among adolescents, GnRH agonists (GnRHa) may be used to temporarily block puberty and has a reversible effect on follicular maturation and future ovarian function [4, 42]. However, for oocyte cryopreservation, maturation typically requires discontinuing GnRHa to improve ovarian response to stimulation. A case study has documented successful ovarian stimulation, while a patient was still using puberty blockers, suggesting that in some instances, stimulation may be possible without interruption of GnRHa [43].

Opportunities

Trans health awareness

Until recently, several European countries required TGD individuals to undergo sterilizing procedures before they could change their legal sex on official documents [44, 45]. This policy was based on the outdated belief that biological parenthood was incompatible with gender affirmation. In 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled this practice illegal, marking a significant step forward in in the rights of TGD individuals. [34, 46].

Since then, policies have evolved, and healthcare professionals have become increasingly informed about gender-diverse care. Advocacy from LGBTIQ + communities has played a key role in driving these changes, leading to the establishment of new guidelines that standardize care and improve health outcomes for TGD individuals.

Diversification of parenthood options

A study of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors found that individuals identifying as LGBTQ were less concerned about how infertility might affect their future romantic relationships and were more open to alternative family structures, such as raising non-biological children or not having children at all compared to their non-LGBT peers [47, 48]. Among TGD youth, a survey showed that even though half wanted to become parents, only a minority valued biological filiation [49]. Adoption was highlighted as an alternative to biological children by those who did not choose to undergo fertility preservation [50, 51]. This option may be particularly appealing to individuals who are unwilling to undergo these treatments and who may find the resulting bodily changes more challenging.

Advances in assisted reproductive technologies

Advances in ART have reduced barriers to reproduction, expanding access to parenthood for TGD individuals. FP, such as oocyte cryopreservation, is now a feasible option due to improved vitrification techniques, which have significantly enhanced gamete survival rates [52, 53]. Recent studies suggest that pregnancy rates are comparable between fresh and vitrified oocytes, underscoring the effectiveness of these advancements [53].

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) may be considered when ovarian stimulation is not a viable option [54]. Live births have been reported among cis women who have undergone OTC, providing some evidence of its potential success [55]. Among individuals undergoing GAT, this method can be combined with GAS and may serve as the only fertility preservation option for individuals before puberty [56]. However, it is important to note that OTC often requires re-transplantation of the ovarian tissue, which may come with potential side effects [57]. According to ASRM guidelines, OTC is no longer considered experimental for post-pubertal individuals [58, 59], though it remains experimental for prepubertal individuals in both ASRM and ESHRE guidelines [60, 61]. Nevertheless, it presents a promising alternative for those unable to undergo traditional ovarian stimulation.

Another promising technique, in vitro maturation (IVM), involves collecting immature oocytes from antral follicles, maturing them under laboratory conditions. Although oocyte IVM is no longer considered experimental in reproductive medicine, it is not available in all fertility treatment laboratories. The results in terms of fertilization are lower compared to those of the oocytes collected after conventional controlled hyperstimulation, but important improvements in the technique have been achieved [62, 63]. IVM has shown potential in TGD individuals, with successful collection of cumulus-oocyte-complexes even under testosterone treatment, though the efficiency remains low [65, 66]. The lack of recommendations for application of this specific technique to fertility preservation in TGD individuals makes it difficult to define a non-experimental setting for use in such cases.

Weakness

Dysphoria

Managing hormonal treatments during fertility preservation can be particularly challenging for individuals experiencing gender dysphoria. In those undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation, a washout period from testosterone therapy may heighten distress [24, 67]. The resulting surge in estradiol—along with the potential return of menstruation—can further exacerbate dysphoria, intensifying symptoms that conflict with the individual’s gender identity.

The process also requires frequent ultrasounds, which may increase physical discomfort and trigger gender dysphoria. Additionally, the oocyte retrieval procedure is invasive, involving transvaginal ultrasound-guided needle aspiration of the ovaries under sedation or anesthesia, further adding to the physical and emotional burden [17, 69].

Fertility counseling and conversations about reproductive anatomy can exacerbate dysphoria in who experience distress related to their reproductive organs. It is therefore essential that healthcare professionals receive training to navigate these conversations sensitively, acknowledging the psychological and emotional barriers that may impact decision-making regarding FP.

Challenges of ovarian stimulation

For postpubertal TGD individuals, oocyte cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation is the standard procedure [70, 71]. Overall, cryopreservation allows individuals to defer decisions about parenthood while preserving their potential to become parents in the future.

A major risk associated with ovarian stimulation is ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), especially in younger individuals with high ovarian reserves [72]. Although the use of GnRH agonists to trigger ovulation has been shown to greatly reduce the risk of OHSS with no negative impact on oocyte quality or quantity [73], the risk of OHSS remains a concern for some patients. Nevertheless, since TGD individuals are often younger than cisgender patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF or elective oocyte vitrification, they tend to have higher numbers of mature oocytes and lower rates of aneuploidy, which can improve the success rates of future ART procedures [74].

Timing and transition management

Timing and transition management present significant challenges when discussing FP with TGD individuals, especially during adolescence. In the general population, the desire to have children tends to increase with age peaking between 26 and 36 years old [75]. Parenthood is rarely a priority during adolescence, and aside from young patients undergoing gonadotoxic treatments, concerns about fertility are uncommon. As a result, making decisions about future parenthood during this early stage can be particularly challenging [76].

Additionally, some TGD individuals choose not to undergo FP to avoid delaying their transition or due to concerns about temporarily pausing hormone therapy [17, 22]. However, with timely referrals and well-coordinated consultations, delays can be minimized. This underscores the need for proactive management to minimize treatment delays while preserving fertility options.

Challenges of family-building

Pregnancy following gamete cryopreservation is not guaranteed. With oocyte cryopreservation in particular, the likelihood of a live birth decreases based on the age at which the retrieval was performed, and the number of oocytes collected [74, 77, 78].

For TGD individuals who wish to have biological children, the choice of a partner plays a significant role in shaping their family planning. Depending on the reproductive capabilities of both partners, different paths may be pursued, such as the use of ART, including sperm or egg donation, surrogacy, or reciprocal IVF. However, access to these options remains limited, notably due to high costs and legal restrictions.

Some individuals have never considered their future parenthood plans, whether due to young age, absence of a partner, or an unstable personal situation often compounded by gender dysphoria. Introducing fertility counseling in this context can lead to additional psychological burden [80, 81].

Strength

Fertility counseling and discussion about parenthood options

Access to counseling services can help individuals explore their attitudes toward fertility and parenthood while providing support in a shared decision process. Furthermore, fertility counselling is also an opportunity to explore and explain alternative options, such as IVF, surrogacy, gamete donation, and spontaneous conceptions.

Adapted stimulation protocols

Several adjustments to standard ovarian stimulation protocols can be suggested to meet the needs of TGD individuals. A precautionary 3-month washout from testosterone treatment is typically recommended before starting ovarian stimulation, due to the lack of data on the impact of GAHT on oocyte quality [34, 82, 83]. It has been suggested that testosterone may be continued until and even during ovarian stimulation, following appropriate individual discussions and shared decision-making [57, 82, 84, 86]. The outcomes of stimulation with or without a washout are unclear and may depend on the duration of GAHT. The use of aromatase inhibitors may help decrease estradiol levels while still supporting adequate follicular growth, which could be beneficial in minimizing dysphoria by reducing both circulating estrogen and the intensity of menstrual bleeding [87, 88]. These inhibitors are already widely used in breast cancer patients without compromising stimulation outcomes [90]. Additionally, the levonorgestrel intrauterine hormonal system, often used for birth control or to reduce menstruation, can be left in place during ovarian stimulation without negatively affecting outcomes [73]. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation is another viable option, using progestin both to prevent premature LH surges and to reduce endometrial thickening, thereby potentially mitigating some of the gender dysphoria caused by stimulation [91]. While these improvements have primarily been developed with cisgender patients in mind, they could also offer significant benefits for TGD individuals undergoing fertility preservation.

To minimize dysphoria related to transvaginal procedures like ultrasound or oocyte retrieval, alternative options exist such as trans abdominal or transrectal ultrasound, and transabdominal egg retrieval. These procedures have been shown to be safe and effective [92, 93] but should be done under sufficient sedation to ensure comfort and reduce dysphoria in those who do not tolerate vaginal procedures.

Discussion

Regret

Among individuals who underwent sterilizing procedures before FP options became available, 44% of those assigned female at birth expressed a desire for FP—nine or more years after GAS. The desire for children increased from 34% in adolescence to 56% in adulthood, illustrating that the wish to have children often strengthens over time [94].

Among cancer survivors, it has been shown that iatrogenic infertility can lead to regret and mental distress, especially for pediatric patients [95, 96]. Although the circumstances of cancer patients and TGD individuals differ, both groups exhibit similar levels of regret when FP is not pursued, particularly when reproductive counseling is absent [17, 95–98]. Comprehensive and informed discussions about FP are essential during the transition process to help individuals make informed decisions, prevent potential regret, and address the mental health implications of irreversible steps.

Gamete storage

Oocyte cryopreservation is usually used as a kind of “fertility insurance” and many of the individuals—both cis and trans—who stored their gametes may never use them in the future. Studies conducted on cancer survivors highlighted that only 6% of cis women used their stored gametes [100]. These data raise important questions about the potential overuse of medical resources and the ultimate disposition of stored oocytes. While they may be used for reproduction, donated to research, or discarded, the latter remains the most common outcome [101]. As the interest in gamete storage grows, concerns about the resources needed for storage, transportation, and their ecological impact are increasing. Offsite storage and the relocation of gametes for reasons such as seeking permissive legislation also add to the environmental burden. Additionally, medical tourism [102] is contributing to ethically questionable practices like commercial surrogacy [103], advanced-aged pregnancies [104], and sex selection [105].

Need for research

Unfortunately, research on the effects of GAHT on fertility and its reversibility remains limited and is often inconsistent, with contradictions between older and more recent studies [29, 30, 37, 38, 106–108]. This inconsistency is particularly problematic for counseling, as inconclusive data can lead to suboptimal care that is often not adapted to the needs of TGD individuals. Additionally, there is a critical lack of research on the effects of puberty blockers and other gender-affirming interventions on gonads in young adolescents, which is concerning given that decisions about these treatments are often made at the onset of puberty [110]. Longitudinal and prospective studies should be conducted to determine the effects of puberty blockers and GAHT on gonadal function. These treatments present unique challenges for fertility preservation, underscoring the need for further research to develop more effective strategies tailored to this population. Ovarian stimulation protocols have not been standardized, and prospective studies investigating the outcomes of oocyte retrieval and live births for individuals who have undergone oocyte cryopreservation while on testosterone versus those whose testosterone was interrupted would be useful to determine the impact of different washout periods on the success of fertility preservation.

In the absence of accurate, evidence-based guidance, TGD individuals—particularly adolescents—may be compelled to make decisions about their reproductive futures without a full understanding of the potential consequences. Therefore, it is imperative that more research is conducted to inform clinical guidelines and ensure that healthcare providers can offer TGD patients the best possible care.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is essential that fertility counseling is offered to all transgender and non-binary individuals seeking GAT. Advances in medical technology and evolving policies now provide the possibility of biological parenthood; however, healthcare professionals must address the unique stigmas and barriers TGD individuals face. They should be informed about the potential effects of hormone therapy on fertility, the cost of procedures, and potential limitations depending on their partner’s reproductive options. Addressing timing and transition management is key for TGD individuals making informed fertility preservation decisions. Balancing current transition goals with future reproductive plans is essential for holistic care. Given the limited data on the reversibility of GAHT and the potential influence of treatment duration, further research is needed. Technological advancements should also focus on prepubertal fertility preservation as more children opt for early transition.

Healthcare providers must consider the medical, psychosocial, and ethical factors influencing fertility decisions, as current fertility counseling is often incomplete and inaccessible, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds [111]. Inclusive practices and policies are urgently needed to improve access to ART. By advocating for policy changes and including TGD voices in research, healthcare systems can create guidelines that respect their reproductive rights, as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [112].

Author contribution

JEB and IS conceived and designed the research. The data curation and writing were conducted by JEB. All authors read, edited, and approved the manuscript.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Geneva. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

Does not apply as this is a review.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT to improve the readability and language of the manuscript. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Unger CA. Care of the transgender patient: the role of the gynecologist. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(1):16–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Coleman E, Radix AE, Bouman WP, Brown GR, de Vries ALC. Deutsch MB, et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8. Int J Transgender Health.2022;23(Suppl 1):S1–259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 3.Zucker KJ. Epidemiology of gender dysphoria and transgender identity. Sex Health. 2017;14(5):404–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hembree WC, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, Hannema SE, Meyer WJ, Murad MH, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: an Endocrine Society* clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(11):3869–903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rosenthal SM. Approach to the patient: transgender youth: endocrine considerations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(12):4379–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Owen-Smith AA, Gerth J, Sineath RC, Barzilay J, Becerra-Culqui TA, Getahun D, et al. Association between gender confirmation treatments and perceived gender congruence, body image satisfaction, and mental health in a cohort of transgender individuals. J Sex Med. 2018;15(4):591–600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Almazan AN, Keuroghlian AS. Association between gender-affirming surgeries and mental health outcomes. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(7):611–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schmidt L, Levine R. Psychological outcomes and reproductive issues among gender dysphoric individuals. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2015;44(4):773–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.T’Sjoen G, Arcelus J, Gooren L, Klink DT, Tangpricha V. Endocrinology of transgender medicine. Endocr Rev. 2019;40(1):97–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nahata L, Chen D, Moravek MB, Quinn GP, Sutter ME, Taylor J, et al. Understudied and under-reported: fertility issues in transgender youth—a narrative review. J Pediatr. 2019;1(205):265–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Access to fertility services by transgender and nonbinary persons: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(4):874–8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 12.De Wert G, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Barri P, Devroey P, Diedrich K, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people†. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1859–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nahata L, Tishelman AC, Caltabellotta NM, Quinn GP. Low fertility preservation utilization among transgender youth. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61(1):40–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen D, Simons L, Johnson EK, Lockart BA, Finlayson C. Fertility preservation for transgender adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61(1):120–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wakefield BW, Boguszewski KE, Cheney D, Taylor JF. Patterns of fertility discussions and referrals for youth at an interdisciplinary gender clinic. LGBT Health. 2019;6(8):417–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Auer MK, Fuss J, Nieder TO, Briken P, Biedermann SV, Stalla GK, et al. Desire to have children among transgender people in Germany: a cross-sectional multi-center study. J Sex Med. 2018;15(5):757–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vyas N, Douglas CR, Mann C, Weimer AK, Quinn MM. Access, barriers, and decisional regret in pursuit of fertility preservation among transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(4):1029–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cobo A, Giles J, Paolelli S, Pellicer A, Remohí J, García-Velasco JA. Oocyte vitrification for fertility preservation in women with endometriosis: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(4):836–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Streuli I, Benard J, Hugon-Rodin J, Chapron C, Santulli P, Pluchino N. Shedding light on the fertility preservation debate in women with endometriosis: a swot analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;229:172–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Planned oocyte cryopreservation to preserve future reproductive potential: an Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Planned oocyte cryopreservation to preserve future reproductive potential. an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2024;121(4):604–12. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 21.Lahoti U, Pajai S, Shegekar T, Juganavar A. Exploring the landscape of social egg freezing: navigating medical advancements, ethical dilemmas, and societal impacts. Cureus. 2023;15(10):e47956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Defreyne J, Van Schuylenbergh J, Motmans J, Tilleman KL, Rik T’Sjoen GG. Parental desire and fertility preservation in assigned female at birth transgender people living in Belgium. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(1):149-157.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kyweluk M, Fiester A. The ethical mandate of fertility preservation coverage for transgender and gender diverse individuals. IJFAB Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth. 2023;16(2):182–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Armuand G, Dhejne C, Olofsson JI, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA. Transgender men’s experiences of fertility preservation: a qualitative study. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(2):383–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rinehart LA. Storage, transport, and disposition of gametes and embryos: legal issues and practical considerations. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(2):274–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Frost DM, Meyer IH. Minority stress theory: application, critique, and continued relevance. Curr Opin Psychol. 2023;51(Jun 1): 101579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hatzenbuehler ML, Pachankis JE. Stigma and minority stress as social determinants of health among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: research evidence and clinical implications. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016;63(6):985–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brown C. Exploring trans people’s experiences of adoption and fostering in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study. Int J Transgend Health. 2021;22(1–2):89–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pache TD, Chadha S, Gooren LJ, Hop WC, Jaarsma KW, Dommerholt HB, et al. Ovarian morphology in long-term androgen-treated female to male transsexuals. A human model for the study of polycystic ovarian syndrome? Histopathology. 1991;19(5):445–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Spinder T, Spijkstra JJ, Gooren LJ, Hompes PG, van Kessel H. Effects of long-term testosterone administration on gonadotropin secretion in agonadal female to male transsexuals compared with hypogonadal and normal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1989;68(1):200–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Grimstad FW, Fowler KG, New EP, Ferrando CA, Pollard RR, Chapman G, et al. Ovarian histopathology in transmasculine persons on testosterone: a multicenter case series. J Sex Med. 2020;17(9):1807–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Witchel SF, Plant TM. Chapter 33—Neurobiology of puberty and its disorders. In: Swaab DF, Buijs RM, Lucassen PJ, Salehi A, Kreier F, editors. Handbook of clinical neurology [Internet]. Elsevier; 2021. pp. 463–96. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128206836000336 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 33.Ikeda K, Baba T, Noguchi H, Nagasawa K, Endo T, Kiya T, et al. Excessive androgen exposure in female-to-male transsexual persons of reproductive age induces hyperplasia of the ovarian cortex and stroma but not polycystic ovary morphology. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):453–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Leung A, Sakkas D, Pang S, Thornton K, Resetkova N. Assisted reproductive technology outcomes in female-to-male transgender patients compared with cisgender patients: a new frontier in reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(5):858–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Adeleye AJ, Cedars MI, Smith J, Mok-Lin E. Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation or family building in a cohort of transgender men. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(10):2155–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Amir H, Yaish I, Oren A, Groutz A, Greenman Y, Azem F. Fertility preservation rates among transgender women compared with transgender men receiving comprehensive fertility counselling. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(3):546–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Borrás A, Manau MD, Fabregues F, Casals G, Saco A, Halperin I, et al. Endocrinological and ovarian histological investigations in assigned female at birth transgender people undergoing testosterone therapy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43(2):289–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Caanen MR, Schouten NE, Kuijper EAM, van Rijswijk J, van den Berg MH, van Dulmen-den BE, et al. Effects of long-term exogenous testosterone administration on ovarian morphology, determined by transvaginal (3D) ultrasound in female-to-male transsexuals. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2017;32(7):1457–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.De Roo C, Lierman S, Tilleman K, Peynshaert K, Braeckmans K, Caanen M, et al. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation in female-to-male transgender people: insights into ovarian histology and physiology after prolonged androgen treatment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34(6):557–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Light AD, Obedin-Maliver J, Sevelius JM, Kerns JL. Transgender men who experienced pregnancy after female-to-male gender transitioning. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(6):1120–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Light A, Wang LF, Zeymo A, Gomez-Lobo V. Family planning and contraception use in transgender men. Contraception. 2018;98(4):266–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Magiakou MA, Manousaki D, Papadaki M, Hadjidakis D, Levidou G, Vakaki M, et al. The efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog treatment in childhood and adolescence: a single center, long-term follow-up study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95(1):109–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rothenberg SS, Witchel SF, Menke MN. Oocyte cryopreservation in a transgender male adolescent. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(9):886–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Brunet L. Stérilisation et changement de la mention du sexe à l’état civil : Les atermoiements du droit français. In: Hérault L, editor. La parenté transgenre [Internet]. Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires de Provence;[cited 2024 Mar 20]:2014;127–42. (Penser le genre). Available from: https://books.openedition.org/pup/28380.
  • 45.Laurence Hérault (dir.), La parenté transgenre, Aix-Marseille, Presses universitaires de Provence, col. « Penser le genre »; 2014. p. 146.
  • 46.La stérilisation forcée des personnes transgenres viole les droits humains- humanrights.ch [Internet]. [cited 2024 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.humanrights.ch/fr/pfi/fondamentaux/application/conseil-europe/credh/arrets-credh/sterilisation-forcee-transgenres.
  • 47.Wierckx K, Van Caenegem E, Pennings G, Elaut E, Dedecker D, Van de Peer F, et al. Reproductive wish in transsexual men. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(2):483–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 48. M. Russell A, Galvin KM, Harper MM, Clayman ML. A comparison of heterosexual and LGBTQ cancer survivors’ outlooks on relationships, family building, possible infertility, and patient-doctor fertility risk communication. J Cancer Surviv. 2016;10(5):935–42. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 49.Strang JF, Jarin J, Call D, Clark B, Wallace GL, Anthony LG, et al. Transgender youth fertility attitudes questionnaire: measure development in nonautistic and autistic transgender youth and their parents. J Adolesc Health. 2018;62(2):128–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tornello SL, Bos H. Parenting intentions among transgender individuals. LGBT Health. 2017;4(2):115–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.von Doussa H, Power J, Riggs D. Imagining parenthood: the possibilities and experiences of parenthood among transgender people. Cult Health Sex. 2015;17(9):1119–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(2):139–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Cobo A, García-Velasco JA, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(3):755-764.e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Meirow D, Ra’anani H, Shapira M, Brenghausen M, Derech Chaim S, Aviel-Ronen S, et al. Transplantations of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue demonstrate high reproductive performance and the need to revise restrictive criteria. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):467–74. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 55.Jensen AK, Macklon KT, Fedder J, Ernst E, Humaidan P, Andersen CY. 86 successful births and 9 ongoing pregnancies worldwide in women transplanted with frozen-thawed ovarian tissue: focus on birth and perinatal outcome in 40 of these children. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(3):325–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mattawanon N, Spencer JB, Schirmer DA, Tangpricha V. Fertility preservation options in transgender people: a review. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2018;19(3):231–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Moravek MB. Fertility preservation options for transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019;31(3):170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. ASRM removes the experimental label from Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation (OTC): pediatric research must continue [Internet]. [cited 2025 Apr 11]. Available from: https://www.fertstert.org/news-do/asrm-removes-experimental-label-ovarian-tissue-cryopreservation-otc-pediatric-research
  • 59.Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or gonadectomy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1022–33. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 60. ESHRE guideline: female fertility preservation† | Human Reproduction Open | Oxford Academic [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 12]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/hropen/article/2020/4/hoaa052/5981739 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 61.Errasti T, Asadi-Azarbaijani B, Güell F, Calleja-Agius J. Review paper on fertility preservation in children and prepubertal adolescents with gynaecological cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2025;51(4): 109483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Gilchrist RB, Smitz J. Oocyte in vitro maturation: physiological basis and application to clinical practice. Fertil Steril. 2023;119(4):524–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Das M, Son WY. In vitro maturation (IVM) of human immature oocytes: is it still relevant? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2023;21(1):110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Das M, Son WY, Buckett W, Tulandi T, Holzer H. In-vitro maturation versus IVF with GnRH antagonist for women with polycystic ovary syndrome: treatment outcome and rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(5):545–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lierman S, Tolpe A, De Croo I, De Gheselle S, Defreyne J, Baetens M, et al. Low feasibility of in vitro matured oocytes originating from cumulus complexes found during ovarian tissue preparation at the moment of gender confirmation surgery and during testosterone treatment for fertility preservation in transgender men. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(4):1068–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lierman S, Tilleman K, Braeckmans K, Peynshaert K, Weyers S, T’Sjoen G, et al. Fertility preservation for trans men: frozen-thawed in vitro matured oocytes collected at the time of ovarian tissue processing exhibit normal meiotic spindles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(11):1449–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Moravek MB, Dixon M, Pena SM, Obedin-Maliver J. Management of testosterone around ovarian stimulation in transmasculine patients: challenging common practices to meet patient needs—2 case reports. Hum Reprod. 2023;38(3):482–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Armuand G, Dhejne C, Olofsson JI, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA. Transgender men’s experiences offertility preservation: a qualitative study. Hum Reprod. 2017 Feb 1;32(2):383–90 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 69.Amir H, Yaish I, Samara N, Hasson J, Groutz A, Azem F. Ovarian stimulation outcomes among transgender men compared with fertile cisgender women. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(10):2463–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.De Roo C, Tilleman K, T’Sjoen G, De Sutter P. Fertility options in transgender people. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2016;28(1):112–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Baram S, Myers SA, Yee S, Librach CL. Fertility preservation for transgender adolescents and young adults: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(6):694–716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Timmons D, Montrief T, Koyfman A, Long B. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a review for emergency clinicians. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(8):1577–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Mourad S, Brown J, Farquhar C. Interventions for the prevention of OHSS in ART cycles: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1(1): CD012103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Goldman RH, Racowsky C, Farland LV, Munné S, Ribustello L, Fox JH. Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2017;32(4):853–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Natividade JC, Londero-Santos A, de Carvalho NM, de Mello RM, Machado RN, Féres-Carneiro T. Desire to have children: validity evidence of an instrument. Psicol Clínica. 2020;32(2):273–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Hudson J, Nahata L, Dietz E, Quinn GP. Fertility counseling for transgender AYAs. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2018;6(1):84–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Hull MGR, Fleming CF, Hughes AO, McDermott A. The age-related decline in female fecundity: a quantitative controlled study of implanting capacity and survival of individual embryos after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(4):783–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Chuang CC, Chen CD, Chao KH, Chen SU, Ho HN, Yang Y-S. Age is a better predictor of pregnancy potential than basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):63–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Female age-related fertility decline. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):633–4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 80.Harris RM, Kolaitis IN, Frader JE. Ethical issues involving fertility preservation for transgender youth. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(10):2453–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Nahata L, Chen D, Quinn GP, Travis M, Grannis C, Nelson E, et al. Reproductive attitudes and behaviors among transgender/nonbinary adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2020;66(3):372–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Barrero JA, Mockus I. Preservation of fertility in transgender men on long-term testosterone therapy: a systematic review of oocyte retrieval outcomes during and after exogenous androgen exposure. Transgender Health. 2023;8(5):408–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Moravek MB. Gender-affirming hormone therapy for transgender men. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;61(4):687–704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Stark BA, Mok-Lin E. Fertility preservation in transgender men without discontinuation of testosterone. FS Rep. 2022;3(2):153–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Moravek MB. Fertility preservation options for transgender and gender-nonconformingindividuals. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;31(3):170–6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 86.Gale J, Magee B, Forsyth-Greig A, Visram H, Jackson A. Oocyte cryopreservation in a transgender man on long-term testosterone therapy: a case report. F&S Reports. 2021;2(2):249–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Dhejne C, Stefenson M, Degerblad M, Olofsson JI. Preserving eggs for men’s fertility. A pilot experience with fertility preservation for female-to-male transsexuals in Sweden. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3, Supplement):e160-1. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Stotzer RL, Herman JL, Hasenbush A. Transgender parenting: a review of existing research. UCLA: The Williams Institute, 2014. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3rp0v7qv.
  • 89.Martin CE, Lewis C, Omurtag K. Successful oocyte cryopreservation using letrozole as an adjunct to stimulation in a transgender adolescent after GnRH agonist suppression. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(2):522–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Ferreiro E, de Uralde BL, Abreu R, García-Velasco JA, Muñoz E. Aromatase inhibitors for ovarian stimulation in patients with breast cancer. Curr Drug Targets. 2020;21(9):910–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Xu S, Wang X, Zhang Y, Han Y, Zhang C. Comparison the effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol and GnRH-a long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve function. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2023;39(1): 2217263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Barton SE, Politch JA, Benson CB, Ginsburg ES, Gargiulo AR. Transabdominal follicular aspiration for oocyte retrieval in patients with ovaries inaccessible by transvaginal ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1773–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Sönmezer M, Saçıntı KG, Gülümser Ç, Özkavukçu S, Atabekoğlu C, Şükür YE. Transabdominal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval for oocyte cryopreservation using a vaginal probe: a comparison of applicability, effectiveness, and safety with conventional transvaginal approach. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023;40(2):399–405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.de Nie I, Asseler JD, Arnoldussen M, Baas S, de Vries ALC, Huirne JAF, et al. Reflecting on the importance of family building and fertility preservation: transgender people’s experiences with starting gender-affirming treatment as an adolescent. Transgender Health. 2024;9(4):298–306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Armuand GM, Wettergren L, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Lampic C. Desire for children, difficulties achieving a pregnancy, and infertility distress 3 to 7 years after cancer diagnosis. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(10):2805–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Sobota A, Ozakinci G. Fertility and parenthood issues in young female cancer patients—a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(4):707–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Stein DM, Victorson DE, Choy JT, Waimey KE, Pearman TP, Smith K, et al. Fertility preservation preferences and perspectives among adult male survivors of pediatric cancer and their parents. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2014;3(2):75–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Chan JL, Letourneau J, Salem W, Cil AP, Chan SW, Chen LM, et al. Regret around fertility choices is decreased with pre-treatment counseling in gynecologic cancer patients. J Cancer Surviv. 2017;11(1):58–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Riggs DW, Bartholomaeus C. Fertility preservation decision making amongst Australian transgender and non-binary adults. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Kim JH, Alzahrani HS, Lee SR, Kim SH, Chae HD. Outcomes of fertility preservation for female cancer patients in a single tertiary center. Yonsei Med J. 2023;64(8):497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Johnston M, Fuscaldo G, Sutton E, Hunt S, Zander-Fox D, Rombauts L, et al. Storage trends, usage and disposition outcomes following egg freezing. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024;48(4): 103728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann P, Westphal LM, et al. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(7):1277–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Deonandan R, Green S, van Beinum A. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(12):742–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Harrison BJ, Hilton TN, Rivière RN, Ferraro ZM, Deonandan R, Walker MC. Advanced maternal age: ethical and medical considerations for assisted reproductive technology. Int J Womens Health. 2017;16(9):561–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(4):720–6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 106.Loverro G, Resta L, Dellino M, Edoardo DN, Cascarano MA, Loverro M, et al. Uterine and ovarian changes during testosterone administration in young female-to-male transsexuals. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55(5):686–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Futterweit W, Deligdisch L. Histopathological effects of exogenously administered testosterone in 19 female to male transsexuals. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1986;62(1):16–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Grynberg M, Fanchin R, Dubost G, Colau JC, Brémont-Weil C, Frydman R, et al. Histology of genital tract and breast tissue after long-term testosterone administration in a female-to-male transsexual population. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20(4):553–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Chan-Sui R, Kruger RE, Cho E, Padmanabhan V, Moravek M, Shikanov A. Effects of transmasculine gender-affirming hormone therapy on future reproductive capacity: clinical data, animal models, and gaps in knowledge. Reprod Camb Engl. 2024;168(5):e240163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Neblett MF, Hipp HS. Fertility considerations in transgender persons. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2019;48(2):391–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Petropanagos A, Cattapan A, Baylis F, Leader A. Social egg freezing: risk, benefits and other considerations. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2015;187(9):666–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Nations U. Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Internet]. United Nations. United Nations; [cited 2024 Jun 24]. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Does not apply as this is a review.


Articles from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES