Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal of Transgender Health logoLink to International Journal of Transgender Health
. 2022 Feb 14;24(1):7–25. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2035883

Reproductive health in transgender and gender diverse individuals: A narrative review to guide clinical care and international guidelines

Kenny Rodriguez-Wallberg a,b,c,✉, Juno Obedin-Maliver d,e, Bernard Taylor f, Norah Van Mello g, Kelly Tilleman h, Leena Nahata i,j,k
PMCID: PMC9879176  PMID: 36713139

Abstract

Background

Hormonal treatments and surgical interventions practiced with the aim to affirm gender identity in transgender and gender diverse patients may impact their future reproductive ability, family building, and family planning options. Whereas it is recommended by international guidelines to discuss the potential risks of infertility and to present fertility preservation (FP) options to transgender individuals and their families prior to initiating any of these treatments, many barriers still remain. Further, transgender and gender diverse individuals often experience barriers to accessing contraception, abortion, pre-conception care, and comprehensive perinatal care.

Aims

In this review we summarize the current literature on reproductive healthcare issues reported in transgender people including fertility issues, fertility preservation (FP), contraception, pregnancy and lactation and perinatal health.

Methods

A narrative literature search of major databases (Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, Web of Science) was conducted. Given the paucity and heterogeneity of studies, summative review tactics were not available. The literature was critically reviewed by international experts in the field with focus on the impact of gender-affirming medical interventions on future fertility, current FP options and reproductive health issues in transgender people.

Results

The current literature supports that transgender and gender diverse individuals may wish to have genetically related children in the future, rendering the issue of FP relevant to this patient group. The cryopreservation of mature gametes is an efficacious option for FP for post-pubertal adolescents and adults. It is recommended to discuss these options at time of planning for gender-affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT) or engaging with other gender-affirming procedures that can limit future fertility. Discontinuation of GAHT may allow individuals to undergo FP later, but data are limited and there is the concern of symptoms and consequences of stopping GAHT. For pre-pubertal and early pubertal children, FP options are limited to the cryopreservation of gonadal tissue. At present the tissue can become functional only after re-transplantation, which might be undesirable by transgender individuals in the future. Preconception counseling, prenatal surveillance, perinatal support, contraceptive, and pregnancy termination related healthcare need to be meaningfully adapted for this patient population, and many knowledge gaps remain.

Discussion

Specialized FP reproductive healthcare for transgender and gender diverse individuals is in early evolution. Research should be conducted to examine effects of medical interventions on fertility, timing of FP, gamete preservation and outcome of the fertility treatments. Strategies to inform and educate transgender and gender diverse patients can lead to optimization of reproductive care and counseling and decision making of FP for this population.

Keywords: Abortion, cryopreservation, fertility preservation, gender-affirming hormone therapy, infertility, oocytes, pregnancy, sperm, transgender

Introduction

Gender affirming hormone treatments and surgical interventions provided to transgender and gender diverse people to align their bodies with their gender identity may limit or alter future reproductive options to varying degrees. It is therefore highly recommended to discuss the risk of infertility inherent to these interventions, as clearly stated in the current guidelines for gender-affirming medical treatment from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) (Coleman et al., 2012) and the Endocrine Society (Hembree et al., 2017). For individuals facing treatments that can affect their fertility potential several options for fertility preservation (FP) have been developed. The most used and available at nearly all reproductive medicine clinics worldwide include the cryopreservation of embryos, oocytes, and sperm, which can be offered to adult patients. These methods may be also applicable to post-pubertal adolescents (Nahata et al., 2019; Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2019a). Research protocols for ovarian and testicular tissue cryopreservation have also been developed at some centers and these methods can be also applied in children (Borgström et al., 2020; Nahata et al., 2019; Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2019a, 2019b).

Most of the reported data on FP in young patients and children have been provided by programs developed for patients with cancer undergoing gonadotoxic therapies, but the number of indications to preserve fertility have rapidly increased over the years, including also benign diseases and genetic conditions (Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2019a). The use of embryos, mature oocytes and sperm have all proven to be efficacious when used in assisted reproductive treatments (ART). Recently, the cryopreservation of mature (postpubertal) ovarian tissue has also become a straightforward technique and is no longer considered experimental (Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2019). However, the future use in several patient populations is quite challenging and thus is still considered experimental in some settings. Indeed, future re-transplantation of gonadal tissue aiming at obtaining fully functional gametes is the standard utilization of the cryopreserved tissue. Additional methods that are also suitable for patients that cannot be recipients of the ovarian tissue transplant, due to risk of reintroducing malignant cells in case of cancer, or because the transplant is undesirable, such as the use of laboratory methods for culture of gametes aiming at in vitro maturing gamete cells up to maturation, are under development (Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2019; Telfer & Andersen, 2021; Wyns et al., 2020).

In the case of prepubertal children, although no longer technically experimental, gonadal tissue cryopreservation remains a difficult decision to make. This is owing to the fact that the true capacity for the residing ovarian primordial follicles to mature to their full capacity after transplantation has not been shown (Anderson et al., 2020; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2019) nor has the ability to obtain mature sperm from spermatogonia preserved in pre-pubertal cryopreserved testicular tissue been demonstrated in humans (Borgström et al., 2020; Goossens et al., 2020).

Given the clinical complexities outlined above, and financial considerations related to fertility preservation which are currently evolving in many parts of the world (Kawwass et al., 2021), it is challenging for many transgender and gender diverse individuals to make fertility preservation decisions (Rodriguez-Wallberg, 2020). At the same time, it is important to note that transgender and gender diverse people may reproduce while previously or even currently using gender affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT), and this may be a desired or undesired outcome. As many transgender and gender diverse people retain their gonads, the possibility to either become pregnant (if they have a uterus, ovaries and tubes) and of contributing to a pregnancy (if they have penis, testes, and sperm) regardless of past and in some cases current use of GAHT, has to be discussed with all individuals. However, these discussions not always take place as in general, healthcare in gynecology and obstetrics may often not be well prepared to provide the multidisciplinary care tailored to transgender and gender diverse individuals (Falck et al., 2021; Hahn et al., 2019; Hoffkling et al., 2017; Johansson et al., 2020; Rodriguez-Wallberg, 2020).

The goal of this review is to provide a comprehensive description of the current knowledge on reproductive issues in transgender and gender diverse people including fertility counseling and fertility preservation, pregnancy, perinatal issues and lactation, contraception, and abortion care.

Methods

A literature search of major databases (Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, Web of Science) was conducted using search terms pertaining to the population of interest (e.g., transgender, gender diverse, nonbinary) and reproductive health topics (e.g., fertility, contraception, pregnancy, and abortion). No date restrictions were utilized. Although summative analytics were considered, the heterogeneity of data sources, populations, treatments, and variables made summative techniques unfeasible. The literature was critically revised by experts in the field with focus on the impact of gender-affirming medical interventions on future fertility and options for fertility preservation for transgender people. This expert group is part of the working committee on World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care (SOC) 8 Committee and the review was part of the WPATH SOC8 Committee work. Regarding terminology use we use transgender and gender diverse throughout to describe people whose current gender identity differs from that commonly associated with their sex assigned at birth. At times we use terms such as transgender men, transgender women, and/or non-binary among others if that is how original research was described. We use the terminology sex assigned at birth to describe the anatomic and physiological constellations most prevalent with females and males of the human species while recognizing individuals who have differences of sex development or are intersex may not be completely captured in this terminology, but detailed handling of their reproductive health needs is outside of the scope of this review.

Results

Infertility and family building aiming at achieving genetically related children in transgender people

Infertility is an acknowledged cause of psychosocial distress. Several causes of distress have been related to infertility, such as the development of gonadal dysfunction due to underlying medical conditions or gonadotoxic therapies (Armuand et al., 2014). Fertility treatment using donor gametes are available worldwide, however, studies among transgender and gender diverse individuals regarding parenthood goals indicate a preference for genetically related children, although the results provided are conflicting. Some studies indicate that transgender and gender diverse individuals might be less likely to desire genetically related children, or children at all, compared to cisgender individuals (Defreyne et al., 2020; Russell et al., 2016; von Doussa et al., 2015). However, a substantial proportion of available studies support that many transgender and gender diverse individuals wish to have genetically related children, regret missed opportunities for FP and may be willing to delay or interrupt GAHT to undergo procedures aimed at FP or to conceive (Armuand et al., 2017; Auer et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2018; De Sutter et al., 2002; Defreyne et al., 2020; Light et al., 2014; Tornello & Bos, 2017; Vyas et al., 2021; Wierckx et al., 2012a, 2012b).

Impact of medical and surgical gender-affirming interventions on future fertility

Individuals assigned female at birth

GAHT may negatively impact future reproductive capacity. There are various approaches to GAHT. In young adolescents, the use of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone agonists (GnRHa) has been reported for pubertal suppression or to prevent further pubertal progression in post-pubertal individuals, as well as to induce menstrual suppression (Bangalore Krishna et al., 2019). The treatment with GnRHa is usually transitory and it impacts the maturation of gametes as long as the treatment is continued, without causing permanent damage to the gonads, as demonstrated by follow-up of children receiving treatment with GnRHa (Feuillan et al., 1999; Heger et al., 1999; Tanaka et al., 2005). Thus, puberty development, follicle development and oocyte maturation including menstrual cycles would be expected to resume after stopping the medication (Bangalore Krishna et al., 2019).

Testosterone administration in transgender men with the goal of inducing masculinizing characteristics also has effects on reproductive function (Moravek et al., 2020). However, the effects are also thought to be transitory and restoration of ovarian function with oocyte maturation has been reported in observational studies after testosterone interruption among transgender and gender diverse people who reported long-standing exogenous testosterone administration previously and achieved natural conception thereafter (Light et al., 2014; Moseson et al., 2021b). A retrospective study of FP by oocyte cryopreservation showed no differences in the numbers of oocytes retrieved or their maturity between transgender men and age- and BMI-matched cisgender women (Adeleye et al., 2019). There are few studies reporting on live birth rates using assisted reproductive techniques including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and comparing transgender men to cisgender women. In a recent study of transgender men who underwent hormonal ovarian stimulation to either carry a pregnancy or to use their oocytes to be carried by their cisgender women partners, the live birth rate was comparable to that of cisgender women. Sixty-one percent of the transgender men reported prior testosterone exposure (Leung et al., 2019). In all such cases testosterone was discontinued and ovarian stimulation was initiated after either the start of menses or when testosterone levels reached the natal female range. Two additional observational studies (Light et al., 2014; Moseson et al., 2021b) reported on pregnancies among community-dwelling transgender and gender expansive individuals who had used testosterone prior. Light et al. did not specifically address whether testosterone use was continued into pregnancy but did note that 68% of prior testosterone users stopped taking testosterone to become pregnancy and 20% of prior testosterone users were still amenorrheic from testosterone at the initiation of pregnancy. Moseson et al. directly inquired about testosterone use during and immediately prior to pregnancy. They surveyed 1,694 transgender and gender expansive people in the United States and found that 3.5% (n = 15) of the total pregnancies (n = 433) occurred after initiating testosterone and 0.9% (n = 4) occurred while participants were taking testosterone. Overall, results seem reassuring that testosterone impact on the reproductive organs and function is reversible. Nevertheless, data from prospective studies evaluating the effect of long-term GAHT on fertility are lacking (i.e., if GAHT started in adolescence), as well as data from individuals treated with GnRHa in early puberty that thereafter received testosterone therapy. It is important to consider the fact that the required hormonal stimulation and the examinations and invasive procedures needed for cryopreserving oocytes (e.g., pelvic examinations, vaginal ultrasonography for monitoring of follicle growth, and transvaginal oocyte pick-up) may be challenging for transgender men and lead to increasing gender dysphoria in these patients (Armuand et al., 2017; Rodriguez-Wallberg, 2022).

Surgical interventions among transgender and gender diverse people assigned female at birth will have obvious implications for gestational and reproductive capacity. If a hysterectomy is pursued, ovaries can be retained for the future possibility of a genetically related child with pregnancy carriage by another individual (Rodriguez-Wallberg, 2020). Alternatively, if the ovaries are removed, there may also be the option for concurrent ovarian tissue cryopreservation at the time of oophorectomy. Although this procedure is no longer considered experimental in adults, many transgender and gender diverse people assigned female at birth may be reluctant to the idea of re-transplant the ovarian tissue in the future, which is the current established method to regain fertility in cisgender women, and they may desire instead to undergo procedures for in vitro growth and maturation of primordial follicles, which are still at investigational stages (McLaughlin et al., 2018). Studies evaluating oocyte function have shown that oocyte cumulus complexes isolated from ovaries of transgender men under testosterone treatment at time of oophorectomy can be matured in vitro to developing normal metaphase II meiotic spindle structure, however their developmental capacity is substandard (De Roo et al., 2017; Lierman et al., 2017; 2021). The data thus suggest that for transgender and gender diverse people assigned female at birth FP should therefore be performed before initiating or after cessation of GAHT (Rodriguez-Wallberg, 2022).

Individuals assigned male at birth

It has been demonstrated that the continuous treatment with GnRHa inhibits spermatogenesis. However, the data suggest that discontinuation of treatment allows resumption of spermatogenesis in postpubertal individuals. In children treated using GnRHa for precocious puberty, follow-up studies indicate also resumption of puberty and spermatogenesis after discontinuation of the treatment (Bertelloni et al., 2000; Tanaka et al., 2005).The recovery of mature sperm requires at least 3 months or longer (Bertelloni et al., 2000). However, the psychological burden of re-exposure to testosterone with appurtenant masculinization should be considered for transgender women.

Anti-androgens and estrogens impair sperm production (de Nie et al., 2020; Jindarak et al., 2018; Kent et al., 2018). However, these effects seem to be transitory and spermatogenesis might resume even after discontinuation of prolonged treatment with anti-androgens and estrogens, but data are limited (Adeleye et al., 2019; Alford et al., 2020; Schneider et al., 2017). In a previous study testicular volume was found to be clinically diminished after GAHT including estradiol with or without spironolactone, finasteride or progesterone for a duration of at least 6 months and up to 20 years (Matoso et al., 2018).

Semen quality in transgender and gender diverse people assigned male at birth may also be negatively affected by specific behavioral factors such as a low frequency of masturbation, wearing the genitals tight against the body or bringing the testicles into the inguinal canal (‘tucking’) (Jung & Schuppe, 2007; Mieusset et al., 1985, 1987). A recent prospective study of transgender women providing sperm samples for FP in Sweden indicated a higher proportion of sperm abnormalities in sperm of transgender women, even if they had not undergone previous gender-affirming hormone therapy (Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2021a, 2021b).

Fertility preservation options for transgender and gender diverse individuals

Cryopreservation of mature gametes

Cryopreservation of sperm and oocytes are FP techniques with proven efficacy through the use of the gametes in assisted reproductive technology treatments (Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2019a, 2019b). As mature gametes can be achieved naturally or after hormonal stimulation in adults and post-pubertal individuals, these methods can be offered to pubertal, late pubertal, and adults, preferably before GAHT treatment has been initiated or after interruption of GAHT (Chen et al., 2017; De Roo et al., 2016; Martinez et al., 2017; Nahata et al., 2017, 2018; Wierckx et al., 2012a, 2012b). Cryopreservation of embryos can be offered to adult (post-pubertal) transgender and gender diverse individuals with an available partner(s) or identified donor source. The future use of cryopreserved gametes is also dependent on the gametes and reproductive organs of future partner(s) (De Roo et al., 2017).

Semen parameters may be compromised when FP is performed after initiation of GAHT. If GAHT is discontinued, semen parameters may become comparable with those of transgender and gender diverse persons who had never used GAHT medication, according to a recent study with a mean discontinuation period of 4.4 months (Adeleye et al., 2019). However, sperm of transgender women has been reported with higher frequency of anomalies, even if the individuals have not had GAHT previously, which might be associated to the behavioral factors, as discussed above (Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2021a, 2021b).

In transgender men, response to ovarian stimulation, with oocyte yields and vitrified and their subsequent use on ART treatments seem to be comparable with those obtained in cisgender women (Adeleye et al., 2019; Leung et al., 2019; Maxwell et al., 2017). The recent European guideline on female FP from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, ESHRE, included recommendations for transgender individuals, where a stimulation protocol using letrozole alongside gonadotropins has been proposed as a Good Clinical Practice recommendation to reduce systemic estrogen during hormonal stimulation and increasing compliance with this treatment (Anderson et al., 2020; Armuand et al., 2017).

Although these are established FP methods, few pubertal, late pubertal or adult transgender and gender diverse persons undergo FP, and many experience challenges while undergoing FP interventions. Not only is the cost of these methods a barrier, but these processes are often physically uncomfortable and many express concerns about postponing the transitioning process (Chen et al., 2017; De Sutter et al., 2002; Nahata et al., 2017; Wierckx et al., 2012a, 2012b). Especially for people assigned female at birth, the invasiveness of endovaginal ultrasound to monitoring follicle development during hormonal ovarian stimulation and the oocyte retrieval procedures have been cited as a barrier (Armuand et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2017). There is also the concern that young adults who are transitioning might not have a clear vision on parenting and therefore decline the opportunity to use FP while at adult age, they might have different opinions on parenthood (Hudson et al., 2018). As gender dysphoria diminishes while going through transitioning, this could have an influence on the decision process concerning FP (Nahata et al., 2017). Discussing FP options should therefore be performed and repeated at different stages during transition (Hudson et al., 2018; Nahata et al., 2018).

Cryopreservation of gonadal tissue

For pre-pubertal and early pubertal children, FP options are limited to the storage of gonadal tissue. Although this option is possible for transgender and gender diverse children as it is for cisgender children (for example undergoing gonadotoxic therapies), there is no literature that we were able to find, describing the utilization of this approach among transgender and gender diverse populations. To recover fertility, the tissue needs to be re-transplanted, which has currently resulted in over 130 live births in cisgender women worldwide (Donnez & Dolmans, 2015; Jadoul et al., 2017). Among those who have undergone ovarian tissue re-implantation, most conceived naturally without using of additional methods for assisted reproduction, such as in vitro fertilization, and the large majority of cases used ovarian tissue that was cryopreserved at adult age. At present, only three reports of livebirths from re-transplantation of ovarian tissue during early pubertal adolescents have been published. The cases described reflect a similar success of using tissue retrieved from adolescents to that of tissue cryopreserved at adult age (Demeestere et al., 2015; Matthews et al., 2018; Rodriguez-Wallberg et al., 2021b).

Re-transplantation of ovarian tissue might be undesirable in transgender and gender diverse people, due to the potentially undesirable effects of estrogen secretion when the transplanted tissue resumes hormonal function. Also dysphoria toward these organs may make this possibility unrealistic or unwanted (Rodriguez-Wallberg, 2020). Laboratory methods aimed at culture and maturation of oocytes would be the ideal future application for stored ovarian tissue of transgender people, but this technique is still under development in basic research settings (Ladanyi et al., 2017; Rodriguez-Wallberg & Oktay, 2010).

In pre-pubertal people assigned male at birth, testicular tissue biopsies obtained for FP in pre-pubertal boys have been documented as a low risk procedure (Ming et al., 2018) and although some authors have described this as a theoretical option in transgender and gender diverse people (De Roo et al., 2016; Martinez et al., 2017; Nahata et al., 2018), there are no reports of in literature describing the clinical or investigational utilization of this FP option in these populations. Moreover, the clinical application of auto-transplantation of testicular tissue still has yet to be proven in humans and in-vitro maturation techniques are still basic research. Thus, FP specialists for pre-pubertal people assigned male at birth consider this technique experimental (Picton et al., 2015). It is therefore advisable to discuss the possibility of storing gonadal tissue prior to any transition surgery, however the absence of currently established methods for the use of this tissue must be clearly addressed.

Reported use of fertility preservation in transgender and gender diverse individuals and fertility perspectives

The current consensus that infertility is not a prerequisite of gender transition (Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2015; Meyer et al., 2002) has allowed transgender and gender diverse patients to achieve genetically-related parenthood. Further, achieving family building goals is supported by the positive advances in social attitudes, advances in reproductive medicine and gender affirming healthcare. However, current research indicates that the majority of transgender or non-binary people might not want to undertake FP (Riggs & Bartholomaeus, 2018). Counseling provided to individuals requesting GAHT that potentially hamper fertility may thus also include also information and support on alternative options such as fostering, adoption, and co-parenting among others (Bartholomaeus & Riggs, 2020). The experience of transgender people who have been offered this complete type of discussion and a chance to elect to undergo procedures for FP has been reported overall as positive (Armuand et al., 2017; De Sutter et al., 2002; James-Abra et al., 2015). The need for appropriate training of healthcare providers is critical (Armuand et al., 2020).

A large study conducted in Australia including a cohort of 409 adult transgender and non-binary individuals from 18 years of age and older reported positive patients’ experiences of FP when healthcare personnel acted professionally and knowledgeably during provision of affirming and caring services. The patients also described in that study the negative experiences associated with healthcare professionals that acted mainly as gatekeepers of fertility preservation (Bartholomaeus & Riggs, 2020). This study clearly indicates the sensitive role of healthcare providers, as they may act as facilitators and being encouraging, or creating barriers through discouragement about FP. The authors of the study also discussed the WPATH SOC7 guidelines published in 2011 (The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, 2011), which encourage FP briefly and generally, but without specific detailed guidance.

Little is known about fertility-related perspectives among youth transgender and gender diverse people. Two studies recently conducted in the United States (cumulative age range 9-21 years) showed that <5% opted for FP (Chen et al., 2017; Nahata et al., 2017). Reasons for declining FP included preference for adoption and/or no desire to be a parent (Nahata et al., 2017). Similarly, none of the transgender youth (12–18 years of age) surveyed in a Canadian study had attempted FP (Chiniara et al., 2019). In a survey among 25 transgender youth (13–19 years of age) and their parents, none had preserved fertility and 92% reported learning about GAHT-related fertility risks online (Strang et al., 2018). Although many of these youth endorsed a desire to have a child, few (24%) expressed desire to have their own genetically-related child, yet many acknowledged that their feelings about having a biological child might change in the future (Strang et al., 2018). Another survey study (N = 156, M = 16 years) showed that only 53% of transgender youth who had talked to their health-care providers about GAHT had discussed the impact of hormones on fertility. Sixty-one percent of these respondents were interested in learning more about their fertility and family building options (Chen et al., 2018). Notably, recent studies in the Netherlands and Israel have shown higher FP rates, with ∼40% of transgender female adolescents attempting FP (Brik et al., 2019; Segev-Becker et al., 2020). Additionally, parents’ recommendations have been shown to have a significant influence on FP rates in cisgender adolescent and young males with cancer (Klosky et al., 2017). These findings can help inform best practices for fertility counseling and FP referrals for transgender and gender diverse individuals.

In contrast to these studies in youth, some studies of transgender and gender diverse adults show a desire to have children which is comparable to the rates of the cisgender population (De Sutter et al., 2002; Defreyne et al., 2020; Wierckx et al., 2012a, 2012b). In the past, transgender and gender diverse individuals who undertook a medical transition were often confronted with the loss of fertility, due to hormonal and surgical interventions, or the specific prerequisite to become sterile before legal sex change recognition (Payne & Erbenius, 2018). This common prerequisite, previously considered essential to a ‘successful transition’ by a number of clinicians, is no longer the rule, and despite persisting in some countries, it has been removed by law in several countries during recent years (Payne & Erbenius, 2018).

Barriers to fertility preservation

Consistent with literature in other populations at risk for iatrogenic infertility (e.g., adolescents and young adults with cancer), barriers to FP have been reported including cost, time constraints due to the urgency to start a needed treatment, inability of very young patients to make future-oriented decisions, and low level of knowledge in the health care providers (Armuand et al., 2017; Baram et al., 2019; Defreyne et al., 2020; Nahata et al., 2012; Tishelman et al., 2019). Costs of FP vary widely around the world, with many recent changes to insurance coverage and policies (Sax et al., 2020). While the legislative push to increase coverage is promising, many gaps remain (Sax et al., 2020), highlighting the need for more advocacy to ensure reproductive justice (Kawwass et al., 2021). Beyond financial barriers, FP processes are particularly difficult for many transgender patients, as the intrinsic connection of these processes with their sex assigned at birth may worsen the gender dysphoria (Armuand et al., 2017; Baram et al., 2019). A multidisciplinary team needs to be established including both medical and mental health providers in close collaboration with gender-affirming specialists and the reproductive medicine team to overcome some of these barriers.

Attitudes toward parenthood and preconception and prenatal counseling

In addition to addressing fertility issues, efforts should also be made to ensure equitable and high-quality care for all forms of family planning, thus the full reproductive continuum should be covered. This includes pregnancy care and delivery, postpartum and perinatal care, as well as provision of contraceptive options to prevent further unplanned pregnancies, and pregnancy termination services (Bonnington et al., 2020; Cipres et al., 2017; Krempasky et al., 2020; Light et al., 2018; Moseson et al., 2021c). Transgender men and gender diverse people who wish to become pregnant should receive standard of care preconception and prenatal counseling, and should receive also counseling about breast/chest feeding within environments supportive to people with diverse gender identities and experiences (MacDonald et al., 2016; Martinez et al., 2020; Obedin-Maliver & Makadon, 2016).

Pregnancy counseling/perinatal outcomes

The paucity of evidence regarding prenatal care and pregnancy among transgender and gender diverse people is profound. Most transgender men and gender diverse people assigned female at birth can conceive and carry a pregnancy even after long-term testosterone use since most appear to retain their natal reproductive organs (Ellis et al., 2015; Light et al., 2014; Moseson et al., 2021c). Desires for future children are common: 54% of transgender men in a large clinic in Belgium wanted children (Wierckx et al., 2012a, 2012b). Among a more recent US based survey a quarter of transgender men reported fears of not getting pregnant and over a quarter desired children (Light et al., 2018). The largest study we are aware of thus far was conducted in the US with 1,694 transgender and gender expansive community-dwelling individuals assigned female or intersex at birth in the US found that 12% had ever been pregnant, 11% desired future pregnancy, and 16% were uncertain desires for future pregnancy. (Moseson et al., 2021b) Although this was not a population-based study, this group reported an overall past pregnancy rate of 16.8/1,000 per year among transgender and gender expansive people capable of pregnancy. Despite the negative fertility impacts of gender affirming processes and procedures as above, with developments in ART, there are increasing opportunities for transgender and gender diverse people to accomplish family planning goals (De Roo et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2015; Maxwell et al., 2017). To address these issues Martinez et al. (2020) and Hoffkling et al. suggest providing high-quality preconception and perinatal care while urging providers and systems to understand and address issues specific to transgender pregnancy and reproductive concerns (Hoffkling et al., 2017; Martinez et al., 2020). Some unique considerations for transgender and gender diverse people include: cessation and resumption of affirming hormones, genital/body dysphoria and impact on pregnancy and delivery mode, social support, lactation, varyingly referred to as breast or chest feeding, and at times unique legal challenges from less-commonly encountered family constellations.

The effects of exogenous or supraphysiologic testosterone on the developing embryo have not been systematically documented in the context of gender-affirming hormone use, but have been demonstrated as teratogenic to fetal sexual and reproductive anatomy in other settings. Therefore, until better evidence is provided, testosterone or other masculinizing hormone therapy should be discontinued prior to and through any pregnancy. However, optimal wash-out period prior to pregnancy to avoid teratogenic effects is unknown. Additionally the optimal timing in terms of pregnant person and neonatal health for testosterone administration after pregnancy is unknown. Since stopping gender affirming hormones may cause distress and exacerbate dysphoria in transgender men, GAHT management and the methods and timing of cessation should be arrived at in a patient-centered approach, ideally prior to conception.

The conception, birth, and post-partum experiences of transgender and gender diverse people are scantily described but suggest that these time periods may be filled with distress. Psychological isolation and depression have been reported in addition to dysphoria related to body changes including the gravid uterus, body shape, and chest changes (Charter et al., 2018; Ellis et al., 2015; Hoffkling et al., 2017; Obedin-Maliver & Makadon, 2016). However, not all reports are negative with some reporting positive experiences around realizing parenting goals and utilizing natal organs (Light et al., 2014; Hempel, 2016). This leaves important questions about the origins of reported distress in other papers as perhaps related to interactions with medical systems that are discriminatory and unprepared to support transgender and gender diverse people (Hahn et al., 2019; Hoffkling et al., 2017; Moseson et al., 2020b; Snowden et al., 2018). As a result, ensuring adequate and perhaps expanded support systems such as including mental health providers during the preconception, peripartum, and postpartum periods may be beneficial. Prenatal care consistent with the local standard of care is recommended, but how gender diversity and or gender dysphoria may influence or call for modifications to that standard of care is unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear how the social, mental, and physiological experiences of being transgender and gender diverse may influence the desires, risk factors, and health outcomes for birth people and their offspring related (Stroumsa et al., 2019). Small case series do not demonstrate any adverse physical or psychosocial differences compared to infants born of presumably cisgender women, however population-based studies are warranted (Brandt et al., 2019; Chiland et al., 2013; Light et al., 2014). There is a critical need for longitudinal studies to evaluate pregnancy processes and outcomes among transgender and gender diverse people with specific consideration of neonatal and pediatric growth, development, and psychosocial outcomes.

As the reality of uterine transplant has been realized for cisgender women, development of protocols and procedures to facilitate pregnancy via uterine transplantation for transgender women and gender diverse people assigned male at birth on the basis of having Absolute Uterine Factor Infertility (AUFI) (Jones et al., 2019). There is historical precedent here as the first known uterine transplant was performed in a transgender woman, Lili Elbe in 1931, which unfortunately resulted in rejection, infection, and her untimely demise. In the contemporary age, uterine transplantation has resulted in more than 23 live births, successfully accomplished in multiple countries (Jones et al., 2019). While there are important clinical complexities in transgender individuals (e.g. anatomical considerations with regard to pelvic structure and vasculature) (Jones et al., 2019), research shows strong interest in uterine transplantation among many transgender women (Jones et al., 2021). Health care systems that provide transplantation must therefore consider equitable access for transgender women and other gender diverse people born without a uterus as they do for cisgender women. It is important to acknowledge, however, that uterine transplantation is currently highly experimental, with significant risks, and uterine transplant programs are available at limited institutions with IRB protocols (Jahromi et al., 2021).

Lactation or chest/breast feeding

Lactation or chest/breast feeding among transgender and gender diverse people assigned female, has been reported in a few small studies and reports. Those studies report that the majority who chose to chest/breast feed postpartum seemed successful (MacDonald et al., 2016; Wolfe-Roubatis & Spatz, 2015). Contributors to success included: preconception counseling, experienced lactation support, and less comprehensive gender-affirming chest reconstruction if any. Because small amount of exogenous testosterone can pass into human, and there is unquantified risk on neonate/child development following testosterone exposure through human milk, testosterone-based is contraindicated during lactation (Glaser et al., 2009). Owing to residual glandular tissue even after chest reconstruction, some transgender and gender diverse people who carry a pregnancy may experience undesired chest growth and therefore should be informed about this potential and supported in lactation suppression if desired (MacDonald et al., 2016).

Information is limited regarded lactation potential and outcomes in transgender and gender diverse people assigned male at birth, however many people do express the desire to chest/breast feed. Though a number of lay press articles and reports describe lactation among transgender women, to our knowledge, there are only two published case reports of transgender women successfully describing induction lactation and infant feeding through a combination of estrogen, progesterone, domperidone, and breast pumping. Future research should examine the nutritional and immunological profile of chest/breast milk to fill this gap and in the interim, patients need to be informed about risks and benefits of this approach to infant feeding (Reisman & Goldstein, 2018; Wamboldt et al., 2021).

Contraception

Since many transgender individuals may retain reproductive organs and thus reproductive ability, and pregnancy can occur even years after initiation of GAHT, unplanned pregnancies may occur (James et al., 2016; Light et al., 2014; Moseson et al., 2021c). Documentation of pregnancies among transgender and gender diverse people, after initiation of testosterone use and while still amenorrheic from testosterone use (Light et al., 2014) or while actively taking testosterone during pregnancy (Moseson et al., 2021b) have been reported. Even though these studies were not designed to document the impact of testosterone on ovulation, they are a proof of principle that pregnancy can and does occur, for at least some people, while on exogenous testosterone. Therefore, we can confidently surmise that suppression of ovulation is not complete even with administration of exogenous testosterone, and therefore testosterone is not a reliable contraceptive. Consequently, full-spectrum, intentional, and gender-affirming family planning counseling including contraception and abortion is needed. The provision of this care is well within the scope of sexual and reproductive health care providers but limited by health care provider training and preparedness (Fix et al., 2020; Klein et al., 2018; Obedin-Maliver, 2015; Stroumsa & Wu, 2018; Unger, 2015). Although evidence about pregnancy and pregnancy avoidance among transgender and gender diverse individuals is limited, our few available studies suggest individuals may not be using any, or the most effective, forms of contraception (Cipres et al., 2017; Light et al., 2018; Sevelius, 2009). One often reported consideration by both patients and providers is the falsely held belief that testosterone is a form of contraception (Abern & Maguire, 2018; Ingraham et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2017; Light et al., 2018). However, given the incomplete suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis it provides, testosterone should not be considered contraception (Krempasky et al., 2020) as evidenced by the fact that pregnancies have occurred despite amenorrhea from GAHT with testosterone (Light et al., 2014).

Contraceptive methods used by transgender men and gender diverse people assigned female at birth use are varied (Abern & Maguire, 2018; Bentsianov et al., 2018; Bonnington et al., 2020; Chrisler et al., 2016; Cipres et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2017; Krempasky et al., 2020; Light et al., 2018; Sevelius, 2009). As with all people, indications for contraceptive use may be: pregnancy prevention, menstrual suppression, abnormal bleeding, or other medical and gynecological indications (Bonnington et al., 2020; Chrisler et al., 2016; Krempasky et al., 2020; Schwartz et al., 2019). Research gaps regarding contraception, its use, and unmet needs for these populations are global, thereby limiting provider counseling and education. To our knowledge, there are no studies on population-based fertility rates among transgender and gender diverse individuals who were female sex assigned at birth, nor about how exogenous testosterone impacts their fertility and fecundity. Furthermore, to our knowledge there are no studies that examine how the contraceptive efficacy or safety profile of hormonal contraceptive methods (e.g., combined estrogen and progestin hormonal contraceptives, progestin only based contraceptives) or non-hormonal and barrier contraceptive methods (e.g., internal and external condoms, non-hormonal intrauterine devices, diaphragms, sponges, etc.) may be modified by use of exogenous androgens (e.g., testosterone). Lastly, although a few studies considering contraceptive choices and experiences have been published, gaps remain to effecting optimal contraceptive care delivery and provision for transgender and gender diverse people (Bentsianov et al., 2018; Bonnington et al., 2020; Fix et al., 2020; Francis et al., 2018; Ingraham et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2017; Krempasky et al., 2020; Moseson, Lunn, et al., 2020a). Despite these research gaps, for any individual patient, if there are no other medical contraindications to any specific method of birth control all contraceptive options should be made available to patients and contraceptive choice should result from patient preferences, goals, and comorbid medical conditions.

Transgender and gender diverse individuals who preserve their penis and testicles may engage in sexual activity with individuals who have a uterus, ovaries, and tubes of any gender. As discussed above, people who have testes and a penis can present with active sperm in semen samples even during GAHT (Adeleye et al., 2019; Jindarak et al., 2018; Kent et al., 2018). Therefore, individuals who retain their penis and testicles may intentionally or unintentionally contribute to a pregnancy, and thus contraception also needs to be considered if a pregnancy is to be avoided between a person with a uterus, ovaries, and tubes and those who have a penis and testicles, if they are engaging in penis-in-vagina sex, irrespective of the use of gender affirming hormones among either partner. Contraceptive methods for sperm-producing partner are currently limited to barriers methods (i.e., external condoms, internal condoms) and sterilization, or gender affirming surgery (e.g., orchiectomy, that also results in sterilization). Contraceptive counseling that ­considers the sexual behavior and the plausibility of fecundation including information on ­reproductive capacity of sperm production, follicle development and oocyte maturation is recommended.

Pregnancy termination services

As unplanned pregnancies and abortions occur and have been reported among transgender and gender diverse individuals (Abern & Maguire, 2018; Jones et al., 2020; Light et al., 2014; 2018; Moseson et al., 2021c), planning for and providing these services is necessary. Critical gaps remain however in describing and understanding the population-based epidemiology of abortion needs, provision, and experiences among transgender and gender diverse individuals (Fix et al., 2020; Moseson, Lunn, et al., 2020a; Moseson et al., 2021c).

A recent analysis by Jones et al. of the Guttmacher Institute’s 2017 Abortion Provider Census survey, the most comprehensive accounting of abortion provision services in the U.S., estimated that in 2017 non-hospital facilities provided at least several hundred abortions (weighted estimates n = 462–530) to transgender and non-binary patients. The authors acknowledge that this estimate is likely lower than actual incidence but hope it serves to bolster the continued efforts to expand gender-inclusive pregnancy termination services (Jones et al., 2020). Another survey study performed in 2018 by Light et al. at this time directed at transgender men directly and focused on family planning and contraceptive use, found 32 of the 183 respondents had 60 pregnancies with 12% (n = 7) ending in abortion (Light et al., 2018). They further found 71% of those abortions occurred in people who had previously used testosterone, though numbers were small overall (Light et al., 2018). Another recent survey by Moseson et al. reported on experiences of 1,694 transgender and gender expansive individuals (Moseson et al., 2021b). Among the 1,694 individuals, 12% of the sample (210 people) reported a total 433 pregnancies. This study reported that 21% of the pregnancies (n = 92) ended in abortion. For the most recent abortions, 61% occurred at </= 9 weeks of gestation and 61% were performed surgically although respondents 3:1 preferred a medical abortion to surgical abortion citing this methodology as less invasive and more private. A different analysis from the same researchers found that nearly 1 in 5 transgender and gender expansive individuals assigned female or intersex at birth who had been pregnant attempted a self-managed abortion (Moseson et al., 2021a), which is almost 3 times higher than the most liberal estimates of 1 in 15 cited for cisgender women. Although self-managed abortion with standardized abortion regimens can be safe, some methodologies can be quite harmful, and the high numbers reported in this study warrant attention of differential access to pregnancy termination services for transgender and gender diverse people.

Overall, though data are limited, we see that pregnancy termination occurs and services are needed across the gender spectrum. Further, pregnancy termination statistics and experiences differ than those found among cisgender women, calling for clinical and investigational input on these topics to serve these communities. Therefore, since many transgender and gender diverse people retain an anatomic capacity for pregnancy, and pregnancies may not always be planned or desired, ensuring safe, equitable, and accessible gender affirming pregnancy termination services is an important part of comprehensive health care.

Conclusion

The goal of this review was to highlight current considerations regarding FP and other salient aspects of reproductive health care related to pregnancy and perinatal care for transgender and gender diverse individuals, given recent advances in FP methods and the evolving landscape of financial considerations. Limitations of this manuscript were related to design (use of a narrative review rather than a systematic review) and scope (e.g., sexual function/dysfunction was not included given that there have been other recent reviews published on this topic) (Mattawanon et al., 2021).

We found that despite an expanding body of literature highlighting the need for comprehensive reproductive care for transgender and gender diverse individuals, these services are often inadequate or unavailable. Counseling on family building, including discussions about known and unknown infertility risk and FP options, should occur prior to any medical interventions that may impair reproductive capacity, and continue across the care continuum. Contraception, abortion, preconception counseling and perinatal support, should also be routinely provided.

Evidence-based strategies are needed to improve care delivery and FP decision making for this population. Specifically, more research needs to be conducted in transgender and gender diverse people about the effects of GAHT on gonadal function and health of offspring; feasibility of procedures such as uterine transplantation; and family building perspectives at different ages and developmental stages. Finally, structural, and legislative advocacy efforts are needed to ensure equitable access to FP and other aspects of reproductive health care.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Aedan Wolton at the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, United Kingdom for contributing to early stages of SOC8 content.

Funding Statement

Dr. Rodriguez-Wallberg is supported by Clinical Investigator Grants from Stockholm County Council, The Swedish Cancer Society and the Radiumhemmets Research Grants and has received funding from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Childhood Cancer Fund. Dr. Nahata has received funding from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (K08 CA237338). Dr. Obedin-Maliver was partially supported by K12DK111028 from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Disorders.

Disclosure statement

Dr. Juno Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics (5/2017), Ibis Reproductive Health (a non-for-profit research group; 3/2017-5/2018, 2020 – present), Folx, Inc (2020 – present), and Hims Inc. (2019 – present).

The authors declare that they have no other conflict of interests to declare.

References

  1. Abern, L., & Maguire, K. (2018). Contraception knowledge in transgender individuals: Are we doing enough? Obstetrics and Gynecology, 131(1), 65. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000533319.47797.7e [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adeleye, A. J., Cedars, M. I., Smith, J., & Mok-Lin, E. (2019). Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation or family building in a cohort of transgender men. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 36(10), 2155–2161. 10.1007/s10815-019-01558-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alford, A. V., Theisen, K. M., Kim, N., Bodie, J. A., & Pariser, J. J. (2020). Successful ejaculatory sperm cryopreservation after cessation of long-term estrogen therapy in a transgender female. Urology, 136, e48–e50. 10.1016/j.urology.2019.08.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, R. A., Amant, F., Braat, D., D’Angelo, A., Chuva de Sousa Lopes, S. M., Demeestere, I., Dwek, S., Frith, L., Lambertini, M., Maslin, C., Moura-Ramos, M., Nogueira, D., Rodriguez-Wallberg, K., & Vermeulen, N., ESHRE Guideline Group on Female Fertility Preservation. (2020). Eshre guideline: Female fertility preservation. Human Reproduction Open, 2020(4), hoaa052. 10.1093/hropen/hoaa052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Armuand, G., Dhejne, C., Olofsson, J. I., & Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A. (2017). Transgender men’s experiences of fertility preservation: A qualitative study. Human Reproduction, 32(2), 383–390. 10.1093/humrep/dew323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Armuand, G., Dhejne, C., Olofsson, J. I., Stefenson, M., & Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A. (2020). Attitudes and experiences of health care professionals when caring for transgender men undergoing fertility preservation by egg freezing: A qualitative study. Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health, 14, 2633494120911036. 10.1177/2633494120911036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Armuand, G., Wettergren, L., Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A., & Lampic, C. (2014). Desire for children, difficulties achieving a pregnancy, and infertility distress 3 to 7 years after cancer diagnosis. Support Care Cancer, 22(10), 2805–2812. 10.1007/s00520-014-2279-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Auer, M. K., Fuss, J., Nieder, T. O., Briken, P., Biedermann, S. V., Stalla, G. K., Beckmann, M. W., & Hildebrandt, T. (2018). Desire to have children among transgender people in germany: A cross-sectional multi-center study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 15(5), 757–767. 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.03.083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bangalore Krishna, K., Fuqua, J. S., Rogol, A. D., Klein, K. O., Popovic, J., Houk, C. P., Charmandari, E., Lee, P. A., Freire, A. V., Ropelato, M. G., Yazid Jalaludin, M., Mbogo, J., Kanaka-Gantenbein, C., Luo, X., Eugster, E. A., Klein, K. O., Vogiatzi, M. G., Reifschneider, K., Bamba, V., … Medina Bravo, P. G. (2019). Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in children: Update by an international consortium. Hormone Research in Paediatrics, 91(6), 357–372. 10.1159/000501336 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Baram, S., Myers, S. A., Yee, S., & Librach, C. L. (2019). Fertility preservation for transgender adolescents and young adults: A systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 25(6), 694–716. 10.1093/humupd/dmz026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bartholomaeus, C., & Riggs, D. W. (2020). Transgender and non-binary Australians’ experiences with healthcare professionals in relation to fertility preservation. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 22(2), 129–145. 10.1080/13691058.2019.1580388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bentsianov, S., Gordon, L., Goldman, A., Jacobs, A., & Steever, J. (2018). Use of copper intrauterine device in transgender male adolescents. Contraception, 98(1), 74–75. 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bertelloni, S., Baroncelli, G. I., Ferdeghini, M., Menchini-Fabris, F., & Saggese, G. (2000). Final height, gonadal function and bone mineral density of adolescent males with central precocious puberty after therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. European Journal of Pediatrics, 159(5), 369–374. 10.1007/s004310051289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonnington, A., Dianat, S., Kerns, J., Hastings, J., Hawkins, M., De Haan, G., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). Society of family planning clinical recommendations: Contraceptive counseling for transgender and gender diverse people who were female sex assigned at birth. Contraception, 102(2), 70–82. 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Borgström, B., Fridström, M., Gustafsson, B., Ljungman, P., & Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A. (2020). A prospective study on the long-term outcome of prepubertal and pubertal boys undergoing testicular biopsy for fertility preservation prior to hematologic stem cell transplantation. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 67(9), e28507 10.1002/pbc.28507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Brandt, J. S., Patel, A. J., Marshall, I., & Bachmann, G. A. (2019). Transgender men, pregnancy, and the "new" advanced paternal age: A review of the literature. Maturitas, 128, 17–21. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Brik, T., Vrouenraets, L., Schagen, S. E. E., Meissner, A., de Vries, M. C., & Hannema, S. E. (2019). Use of fertility preservation among a cohort of transgirls in the Netherlands. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(5), 589–593. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Charter, R., Ussher, J. M., Perz, J., & Robinson, K. (2018). The transgender parent: Experiences and constructions of pregnancy and parenthood for transgender men in Australia. International Journal of Transgender Health, 19(1), 64–77. 10.1080/15532739.2017.1399496 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, D., Matson, M., Macapagal, K., Johnson, E. K., Rosoklija, I., Finlayson, C., Fisher, C. B., & Mustanski, B. (2018). Attitudes toward fertility and reproductive health among transgender and gender-nonconforming adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 63(1), 62–68. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.11.306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen, D., Simons, L., Johnson, E. K., Lockart, B. A., & Finlayson, C. (2017). Fertility preservation for transgender adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 61(1), 120–123. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.01.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chiland, C., Clouet, A. M., Golse, B., Guinot, M., & Wolf, J. P. (2013). A new type of family: Transmen as fathers thanks to donor sperm insemination. A 12-year follow-up exploratory study of their children. Neuropsychiatrie de L’Enfance et de L’Adolescence, 61(6), 365–370. 10.1016/j.neurenf.2013.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Chiniara, L. N., Viner, C., Palmert, M., & Bonifacio, H. (2019). Perspectives on fertility preservation and parenthood among transgender youth and their parents. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 104(8), 739–744. 10.1136/archdischild-2018-316080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Chrisler, J. C., Gorman, J. A., Manion, J., Murgo, M., Barney, A., Adams-Clark, A., Newton, J. R., & McGrath, M. (2016). Queer periods: Attitudes toward and experiences with menstruation in the masculine of centre and transgender community. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18(11), 1238–1250. 10.1080/13691058.2016.1182645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Cipres, D., Seidman, D., Cloniger, C., 3rd, Nova, C., O’Shea, A., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2017). Contraceptive use and pregnancy intentions among transgender men presenting to a clinic for sex workers and their families in San Francisco. Contraception, 95(2), 186–189. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Coleman, E., Bockting, W., Botzer, M., Cohen-Kettenis, P., DeCuypere, G., Feldman, J., Fraser, L., Green, J., Knudson, G., Meyer, W. J., Monstrey, S., Adler, R. K., Brown, G. R., Devor, A. H., Ehrbar, R., Ettner, R., Eyler, E., Garofalo, R., Karasic, D. H., … Zucker, K. (2012). Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, version 7. International Journal of Transgender Health, 13(4), 165–232. 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. de Nie, I., Meißner, A., Kostelijk, E. H., Soufan, A. T., Voorn-de Warem, I. A. C., den Heijer, M., Huirne, J., & van Mello, N. M. (2020). Impaired semen quality in trans women: Prevalence and determinants. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 35(7), 1529–1536. 10.1093/humrep/deaa133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. De Roo, C., Lierman, S., Tilleman, K., Peynshaert, K., Braeckmans, K., Caanen, M., Lambalk, C. B., Weyers, S., T’Sjoen, G., Cornelissen, R., & De Sutter, P. (2017). Ovarian tissue cryopreservation in female-to-male transgender people: Insights into ovarian histology and physiology after prolonged androgen treatment. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 34(6), 557–566. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. De Roo, C., Tilleman, K., T’Sjoen, G., & De Sutter, P. (2016). Fertility options in transgender people. International Review of Psychiatry (Abingdon, England), 28(1), 112–119. 10.3109/09540261.2015.1084275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. De Sutter, P., Verschoor, A., Hotimsky, A., & Kira, K. (2002). The desire to have children and the preservation of fertility in transsexual women: A survey. International Journal of Transgender Health, 6. [Google Scholar]
  30. Defreyne, J., Van Schuylenbergh, J., Motmans, J., Tilleman, K. L., & T’Sjoen, G. G. R. (2020). Parental desire and fertility preservation in assigned female at birth transgender people living in Belgium. Fertility and Sterility, 113(1), 149–157. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Demeestere, I., Simon, P., Dedeken, L., Moffa, F., Tsépélidis, S., Brachet, C., Delbaere, A., Devreker, F., & Ferster, A. (2015). Live birth after autograft of ovarian tissue cryopreserved during childhood. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 30(9), 2107–2109. 10.1093/humrep/dev128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Donnez, J., & Dolmans, M.-M. (2015). Ovarian cortex transplantation: 60 reported live births brings the success and worldwide expansion of the technique towards routine clinical practice. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 32(8), 1167–1170. 10.1007/s10815-015-0544-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ellis, S. A., Wojnar, D. M., & Pettinato, M. (2015). Conception, pregnancy, and birth experiences of male and gender variant gestational parents: It’s how we could have a family. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 60(1), 62–69. 10.1111/jmwh.12213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2015). Access to fertility services by transgender persons: An ethics committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 104(5), 1111–1115. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.01.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Falck, F., Frisén, L., Dhejne, C., & Armuand, G. (2021). Undergoing pregnancy and childbirth as trans masculine in Sweden: Experiencing and dealing with structural discrimination, gender norms and microaggressions in antenatal care, delivery and gender clinics. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 42–53. 10.1080/26895269.2020.1845905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Feuillan, P. P., Jones, J. V., Barnes, K., Oerter-Klein, K., & Cutler, G. B.Jr.(1999). Reproductive axis after discontinuation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog treatment of girls with precocious puberty: Long term follow-up comparing girls with hypothalamic hamartoma to those with idiopathic precocious puberty. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 84(1), 44–49. 10.1210/jcem.84.1.5409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Fix, L., Durden, M., Obedin-Maliver, J., Moseson, H., Hastings, J., Stoeffler, A., & Baum, S. E. (2020). Stakeholder perceptions and experiences regarding access to contraception and abortion for transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive individuals assigned female at birth in the U.S. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2683–2702. 10.1007/s10508-020-01707-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Francis, A., Jasani, S., & Bachmann, G. (2018). Contraceptive challenges and the transgender individual. Women’s Midlife Health, 4(12), 12. 10.1186/s40695-018-0042-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Glaser, R. L. M. F., Newman, M. M., Parsons, M. M., Zava, D. P., & Glaser-Garbrick, D. (2009). Safety of maternal testosterone therapy during breast feeding. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding, 13(4), 314–317. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Goossens, E., Jahnukainen, K., Mitchell, R. T., van Pelt, A., Pennings, G., Rives, N., Poels, J., Wyns, C., Lane, S., Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A., Rives, A., Valli-Pulaski, H., Steimer, S., Kliesch, S., Braye, A., Andres, M. M., Medrano, J., Ramos, L., Kristensen, S. G., … Stukenborg, J. B. (2020). Fertility preservation in boys: Recent developments and new insights †. Human Reproduction Open, 2020(3), hoaa016. 10.1093/hropen/hoaa016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hahn, M., Sheran, N., Weber, S., Cohan, D., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2019). Providing patient-centered perinatal care for transgender men and gender-diverse individuals: A collaborative multidisciplinary team approach. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 134 (5), 959–963. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Heger, S., Partsch, C.-J., & Sippell, W. G. (1999). Long-term outcome after depot gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment of central precocious puberty: Final height, body proportions, body composition, bone mineral density, and reproductive function. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 84(12), 4583–4590. 10.1210/jcem.84.12.6203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hembree, W. C., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L., Hannema, S. E., Meyer, W. J., Murad, M. H., Rosenthal, S. M., Safer, J. D., Tangpricha, V., & T’Sjoen, G. G. (2017). Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: An endocrine society clinical practice guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 102(11), 3869–3903. 10.1210/jc.2017-01658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hempel, J. (2016). My brother’s pregnancy and the making of a new American family. Time. http://time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/?xid=homepage [Google Scholar]
  45. Hoffkling, A., Obedin-Maliver, J., & Sevelius, J. (2017). From erasure to opportunity: A qualitative study of the experiences of transgender men around pregnancy and recommendations for providers. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 17(Suppl 2), 332. 10.1186/s12884-017-1491-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hudson, J., Nahata, L., Dietz, E., & Quinn, G. P. (2018). Fertility counseling for transgender Ayas. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 6(1), 84–92. 10.1037/cpp0000180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ingraham, N., Wingo, E., & Roberts, S. C. M. (2018). Inclusion of lgbtq persons in research related to pregnancy risk: A cognitive interview study. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 44(4), 292–298. 10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jadoul, P., Guilmain, A., Squifflet, J., Luyckx, M., Votino, R., Wyns, C., & Dolmans, M. M. (2017). Efficacy of ovarian tissue cryopreservation for fertility preservation: Lessons learned from 545 cases. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 32(5), 1046–1054. 10.1093/humrep/dex040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Jahromi, A. H., Horen, S. R., Dorafshar, A. H., Seu, M. L., Radix, A., Anderson, E., Green, J., Fraser, L., Johannesson, L., Testa, G., Schechter, L. S. M., & Schechter, L. (2021). Uterine transplantation and donation in transgender individuals; proof of concept. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(4), 1–359. 10.1080/26895269.2021.1915635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. James, S., Herman, J., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. A. (2016). The report of the 2015 United States Transgender Survey (USTS). https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
  51. James-Abra, S., Tarasoff, L. A., Green, D., Epstein, R., Anderson, S., Marvel, S., Steele, L. S., & Ross, L. E. (2015). Trans people’s experiences with assisted reproduction services: A qualitative study. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 30(6), 1365–1374. 10.1093/humrep/dev087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jindarak, S., Nilprapha, K., Atikankul, T., Angspatt, A., Pungrasmi, P., Iamphongsai, S., Promniyom, P., Suwajo, P., Selvaggi, G., & Tiewtranon, P. (2018). Spermatogenesis abnormalities following hormonal therapy in transwomen. BioMed Research International, 2018, 7919481. 10.1155/2018/7919481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Johansson, M., Wirén, A. A., Ssempasa, D., & Wells, M. (2020). A qualitative study of midwives’ challenges to support transmen during childbirth: A short report. European Journal of Midwifery, 4(3), 3. 10.18332/ejm/116410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Jones, B. P., Alghrani, A., & Smith, J. (2019). Re: Uterine transplantation in transgender women: Medical, legal and ethical considerations. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 126(4), 545–545. 10.1111/1471-0528.15558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Jones, B. P., Rajamanoharan, A., Vali, S., Williams, N. J., Saso, S., Thum, M.-Y., Ghaem-Maghami, S., Quiroga, I., Diaz-Garcia, C., Thomas, P., Wilkinson, S., Yazbek, J., & Smith, J. R. (2021). Perceptions and motivations for uterus transplant in transgender women. JAMA Network Open, 4(1), e2034561. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34561 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Jones, B. P., Williams, N. J., Saso, S., Thum, M.-Y., Quiroga, I., Yazbek, J., Wilkinson, S., Ghaem-Maghami, S., Thomas, P., & Smith, J. R. (2019). Uterine transplantation in transgender women. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 126(2), 152–156. 10.1111/1471-0528.15438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Jones, R. K., Witwer, E., & Jerman, J. (2020). Transgender abortion patients and the provision of transgender-specific care at non-hospital facilities that provide abortions. Contraception: X, 2, 100019. 10.1016/j.conx.2020.100019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Jones, K., Wood, M., & Stephens, L. (2017). Contraception choices for transgender males. The Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 43(3), 239–240. 10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jung, A., & Schuppe, H. C. (2007). Influence of genital heat stress on semen quality in humans. Andrologia, 39(6), 203–215. 10.1111/j.1439-0272.2007.00794.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kawwass, J. F., Penzias, A. S., & Adashi, E. Y. (2021). Fertility-a human right worthy of mandated insurance coverage: The evolution, limitations, and future of access to care. Fertility and Sterility, 115(1), 29–42. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kent, M. A., Winoker, J. S., & Grotas, A. B. (2018). Effects of feminizing hormones on sperm production and malignant changes: Microscopic examination of post orchiectomy specimens in transwomen. Urology, 121, 93–96. 10.1016/j.urology.2018.07.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Klein, D. A., Berry-Bibee, E. N., Baker, K. K., Malcolm, N. M., Rollison, J. M., & Frederiksen, B. N. (2018). Providing quality family planning services to lgbtqia individuals: A systematic review. Contraception, 97(5), 378–391. 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.12.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Klosky, J. L., Flynn, J. S., Lehmann, V., Russell, K. M., Wang, F., Hardin, R. N., Eddinger, J. R., Zhang, H., Schenck, L. A.-M., & Schover, L. R. (2017). Parental influences on sperm banking attempts among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer. Fertility and Sterility, 108(6), 1043–1049. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Krempasky, C., Harris, M., Abern, L., & Grimstad, F. (2020). Contraception across the transmasculine spectrum. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 222(2), 134–143. 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ladanyi, C., Mor, A., Christianson, M. S., Dhillon, N., & Segars, J. H. (2017). Recent advances in the field of ovarian tissue cryopreservation and opportunities for research. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 34(6), 709–722. 10.1007/s10815-017-0899-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Leung, A., Sakkas, D., Pang, S., Thornton, K., & Resetkova, N. (2019). Assisted reproductive technology outcomes in female-to-male transgender patients compared with cisgender patients: A new frontier in reproductive medicine. Fertility and Sterility, 112(5), 858–865. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Lierman, S., Tilleman, K., Braeckmans, K., Peynshaert, K., Weyers, S., T’Sjoen, G., & De Sutter, P. (2017). Fertility preservation for trans men: Frozen-thawed in vitro matured oocytes collected at the time of ovarian tissue processing exhibit normal meiotic spindles. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 34(11), 1449–1456. 10.1007/s10815-017-0976-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Lierman, S., Tolpe, A., De Croo, I., De Gheselle, S., Defreyne, J., Baetens, M., Dheedene, A., Colman, R., Menten, B., T’Sjoen, G., De Sutter, P., & Tilleman, K. (2021). 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. Fertility and Sterility, 116(4), 1068–1076. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Light, A., Obedin-Maliver, J., Sevelius, J., & Kerns, J. (2014). Transgender men who experienced pregnancy after female-to-male gender transitioning. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 124(6), 1120–1127. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Light, A., Wang, L. F., Zeymo, A., & Gomez-Lobo, V. (2018). Family planning and contraception use in transgender men. Contraception, 98(4), 266–269. 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. MacDonald, T., Noel-Weiss, J., West, D., Walks, M., Biener, M., Kibbe, A., & Myler, E. (2016). Transmasculine individuals’ experiences with lactation, chestfeeding, and gender identity: A qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16, 106. 10.1186/s12884-016-0907-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Martinez, F., Andersen, C. Y., Barri, P. N., Brannigan, R., Cobo, A., Donnez, J., … Wallace, H, International Society for Fertility Preservation–ESHRE–ASRM Expert Working Group. (2017). Update on fertility preservation from the Barcelona international society for fertility preservation-ESHRE-ASRM 2015 expert meeting: Indications, results and future perspectives. Fertility and Sterility, 108(3), 407–415.e411. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Martinez, E., Klein, A., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). Prepregnancy counseling for people of all genders: Enhancing safe and accessible family building for transgender, gender diverse, and non-binary individuals. Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports, 9(4), 159–165. 10.1007/s13669-020-00298-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Matoso, A., Khandakar, B., Yuan, S., Wu, T., Wang, L. J., Lombardo, K. A., Mangray, S., Mannan, A. A. S. R., & Yakirevich, E. (2018). Spectrum of findings in orchiectomy specimens of persons undergoing gender confirmation surgery. Human Pathology, 76(June), 91–99. 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Mattawanon, N., Charoenkwan, K., & Tangpricha, V. (2021). Sexual dysfunction in transgender people: A systematic review. The Urologic Clinics of North America, 48(4), 437–460. 10.1016/j.ucl.2021.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Matthews, S. J., Picton, H., Ernst, E., & Andersen, C. Y. (2018). Successful pregnancy in a woman previously suffering from β-thalassemia following transplantation of ovarian tissue cryopreserved before puberty. Minerva Ginecologica, 70(4), 432–435. 10.23736/s0026-4784.18.04240-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Maxwell, S., Noyes, N., Keefe, D., Berkeley, A. S., & Goldman, K. N. (2017). Pregnancy outcomes after fertility preservation in transgender men. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 129(6), 1031–1034. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. McLaughlin, M., Albertini, D. F., Wallace, W. H. B., Anderson, R. A., & Telfer, E. E. (2018). Metaphase ii oocytes from human unilaminar follicles grown in a multi-step culture system. Molecular Human Reproduction, 24(3), 135–142. 10.1093/molehr/gay002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Meyer, W., Bockting, W. O., Cohen-Kettenis, P., Coleman, E., Diceglie, D., Devor, H., Gooren, L., Hage, J. J., Kirk, S., Kuiper, B., Laub, D., Lawrence, A., Menard, Y., Patton, J., Schaefer, L., Webb, A., & Wheeler, C. C. (2002). The harry Benjamin international gender dysphoria association’s standards of care for gender identity disorders, sixth version. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13(1), 1–30. 10.1300/J056v13n01_01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Mieusset, R., Bujan, L., Mansat, A., Pontonnier, F., & Grandjean, H. (1987). Effects of artificial cryptorchidism on sperm morphology. Fertility and Sterility, 47(1), 150–155. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)49951-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Mieusset, R., Grandjean, H., Mansat, A., & Pontonnier, F. (1985). Inhibiting effect of artificial cryptorchidism on spermatogenesis. Fertility and Sterility, 43(4), 589–594. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)48502-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Ming, J. M., Chua, M. E., Lopes, R. I., Maloney, A. M., Gupta, A. A., & Lorenzo, A. J. (2018). Cryopreservation of testicular tissue in pre-pubertal and adolescent boys at risk for infertility: A low risk procedure. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 14(3), 274.e271–274.e275. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Moravek, M. B., Kinnear, H. M., George, J., Batchelor, J., Shikanov, A., Padmanabhan, V., & Randolph, J. F. (2020). Impact of exogenous testosterone on reproduction in transgender men. Endocrinology, 161(3), bqaa014. 10.1210/endocr/bqaa014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Moseson, H., Fix, L., Gerdts, C., Ragosta, S., Hastings, J., Stoeffler, A., … Obedin-Maliver, J. (2021). Abortion attempts without clinical supervision among transgender, nonbinary and gender-expansive people in the United States. BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health, 48(1), 22–30. 10.1136/bmjsrh-2020-200966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Moseson, H., Fix, L., Hastings, J., Stoeffler, A., Lunn, M. R., Flentje, A., Lubensky, M. E., Capriotti, M. R., Ragosta, S., Forsberg, H., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2021). Pregnancy intentions and outcomes among transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people assigned female or intersex at birth in the United States: Results from a national, quantitative survey. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 30–41. 10.1080/26895269.2020.1841058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Moseson, H., Fix, L., Ragosta, S., Forsberg, H., Hastings, J., Stoeffler, A., Lunn, M. R., Flentje, A., Capriotti, M. R., Lubensky, M. E., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2021). Abortion experiences and preferences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people in the United States. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 224(4), 376.e1–376.e11. 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Moseson, H., Lunn, M. R., Katz, A., Fix, L., Durden, M., Stoeffler, A., Hastings, J., Cudlitz, L., Goldberg, E., Lesser-Lee, B., Letcher, L., Reyes, A., Flentje, A., Capriotti, M. R., Lubensky, M. E., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). Development of an affirming and customizable electronic survey of sexual and reproductive health experiences for transgender and gender nonbinary people. PLoS One, 15(5), e0232154. 10.1371/journal.pone.0232154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Moseson, H., Zazanis, N., Goldberg, E., Fix, L., Durden, M., Stoeffler, A., Hastings, J., Cudlitz, L., Lesser-Lee, B., Letcher, L., Reyes, A., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). The imperative for transgender and gender nonbinary inclusion: Beyond women’s health. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135(5), 1059–1068. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Nahata, L., Chen, D., Moravek, M. B., Quinn, G. P., Sutter, M. E., Taylor, J., Tishelman, A. C., & Gomez-Lobo, V. (2019). Understudied and under-reported: Fertility issues in transgender youth – A narrative review. The Journal of Pediatrics, 205(February), 265–271. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Nahata, L., Cohen, L. E., & Yu, R. N. (2012). Barriers to fertility preservation in male adolescents with cancer: It’s time for a multidisciplinary approach that includes urologists. Urology, 79(6), 1206–1209. 10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Nahata, L., Curci, M. B., & Quinn, G. P. (2018). Exploring fertility preservation intentions among transgender youth. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 62(2), 123–125. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.11.288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Nahata, L., Tishelman, A. C., Caltabellotta, N. M., & Quinn, G. P. (2017). Low fertility preservation utilization among transgender youth. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 61(1), 40–44. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Obedin-Maliver, J. (2015). Time for obgyns to care for people of all genders. Journal of Women’s Health (2002), 24(2), 109–111. 10.1089/jwh.2015.1518 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Obedin-Maliver, J., & Makadon, H. (2016). Transgender men and pregnancy. Obstetric Medicine, 9(1), 4–8. 10.1177/1753495X15612658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Payne, J. G., & Erbenius, T. (2018). Conceptions of transgender parenthood in fertility care and family planning in Sweden: From reproductive rights to concrete practices. Anthropology & Medicine, 25(3), 329–343. 10.1080/13648470.2018.1507485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Picton, H. M., Wyns, C., Anderson, R. A., Goossens, E., Jahnukainen, K., Kliesch, S., Mitchell, R. T., Pennings, G., Rives, N., Tournaye, H., van Pelt, A. M. M., Eichenlaub-Ritter, U., & Schlatt, S., ESHRE Task Force On Fertility Preservation In Severe Diseases. (2015). A European perspective on testicular tissue cryopreservation for fertility preservation in prepubertal and adolescent boys. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 30(11), 2463–2475. 10.1093/humrep/dev190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine . (2019). Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or gonadectomy: A committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 112(6), 1022–1033. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.09.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Reisman, T., & Goldstein, Z. (2018). Case report: Induced lactation in a transgender woman. Transgender Health, 3(1), 24–26. 10.1089/trgh.2017.0044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Riggs, D. W., & Bartholomaeus, C. (2018). Fertility preservation decision making amongst Australian transgender and non-binary adults. Reproductive Health, 15(1), 181. 10.1186/s12978-018-0627-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. (2020). Chapter 12 – Fertility preservation for transgender individuals. In Legato M. J. (Ed.), The plasticity of sex (pp. 171–185). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-815968-2.00017-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. (2022). Fertility preservation in transgender males. In Grynberg M. & Patrizio P. (Eds.), Female and male fertility preservation (pp. 239–245). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-030-47767-7_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Rodriguez-Wallberg, K., Häljestig, J., Arver, S., Johansson, A. L. V., & Lundberg, F. E. (2021a). Sperm quality in transgender women before or after gender affirming hormone therapy—A prospective cohort study. Andrology, 9(6), 1773–1780. 10.1111/andr.12999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A., Marklund, A., Lundberg, F., Wikander, I., Milenkovic, M., Anastacio, A., Sergouniotis, F., Wånggren, K., Ekengren, J., Lind, T., & Borgström, B. (2019a). A prospective study of women and girls undergoing fertility preservation due to oncologic and non-oncologic indications in Sweden-Trends in patients’ choices and benefit of the chosen methods after long-term follow up. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 98(5), 604–615. 10.1111/aogs.13559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A., Milenkovic, M., Papaikonomou, K., Keros, V., Gustafsson, B., Sergouniotis, F., Wikander, I., Perot, R., Borgström, B., Ljungman, P., & Barbany, G. (2021b). Successful pregnancies after transplantation of ovarian tissue retrieved and cryopreserved at time of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia – A case report. Haematologica, 106(10), 2783–2787. 10.3324/haematol.2021.278828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Rodriguez-Wallberg, K., & Oktay, K. (2010). Fertility preservation medicine: Options for young adults and children with cancer. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, 32(5), 390–396. 10.1097/MPH.0b013e3181dce339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Rodriguez-Wallberg, K., Waterstone, M., & Anastácio, A. (2019b). Ice age: Cryopreservation in assisted reproduction – An update. Reproductive Biology, 19(2), 119–126. 10.1016/j.repbio.2019.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Russell, A., Galvin, K. M., Harper, M. M., & Clayman, M. L. (2016). A comparison of heterosexual and lgbtq cancer survivors’ outlooks on relationships, family building, possible infertility, and patient-doctor fertility risk communication. Journal of Cancer Survivorship: Research and Practice, 10(5), 935–942. 10.1007/s11764-016-0524-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Sax, M. R., Pavlovic, Z., & DeCherney, A. H. (2020). Inconsistent mandated access to fertility preservation: A review of relevant state legislation. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135(4), 848–851. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003758 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Schneider, F., Kliesch, S., Schlatt, S., & Neuhaus, N. (2017). Andrology of male-to-female transsexuals: Influence of cross-sex hormone therapy on testicular function. Andrology, 5(5), 873–880. 10.1111/andr.12405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Schwartz, A. R., Russell, K., & Gray, B. A. (2019). Approaches to vaginal bleeding and contraceptive counseling in transgender and gender nonbinary patients. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 134(1), 81–90. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Segev-Becker, A., Israeli, G., Elkon-Tamir, E., Perl, L., Sekler, O., Amir, H., Interator, H., Dayan, S. C., Chorna, E., Weintrob, N., & Oren, A. (2020). Children and adolescents with gender dysphoria in Israel: Increasing referral and fertility preservation rates. Endocrine Practice, 26(4), 423–428. 10.4158/EP-2019-0418 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Sevelius, J. (2009). “There’s no pamphlet for the kind of sex I have”: HIV-related risk factors and protective behaviors among transgender men who have sex with nontransgender men. The Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care: JANAC, 20(5), 398–410. 10.1016/j.jana.2009.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Snowden, J. M., Guise, J.-M., & Kozhimannil, K. B. (2018). Promoting inclusive and person-centered care: Starting with birth. Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 45(3), 232–235. 10.1111/birt.12351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Strang, J. F., Jarin, J., Call, D., Clark, B., Wallace, G. L., Anthony, L. G., Kenworthy, L., & Gomez-Lobo, V. (2018). Transgender youth fertility attitudes questionnaire: Measure development in nonautistic and autistic transgender youth and their parents. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 62(2), 128–135. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Stroumsa, D., Roberts, E. F. S., Kinnear, H., & Harris, L. H. (2019). The power and limits of classification – A 32-year-old man with abdominal pain. The New England Journal of Medicine, 380(20), 1885–1888. 10.1056/NEJMp1811491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Stroumsa, D., & Wu, J. P. (2018). Welcoming transgender and nonbinary patients: Expanding the language of "women’s health. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 219(6), 585.e581–585.e585. 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Tanaka, T., Niimi, H., Matsuo, N., Fujieda, K., Tachibana, K., Ohyama, K., Satoh, M., & Kugu, K. (2005). Results of long-term follow-up after treatment of central precocious puberty with leuprorelin acetate: Evaluation of effectiveness of treatment and recovery of gonadal function. The tap-144-sr Japanese study group on central precocious puberty. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 90(3), 1371–1376. 10.1210/jc.2004-1863 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Telfer, E. E., & Andersen, C. Y. (2021). In vitro growth and maturation of primordial follicles and immature oocytes. Fertility and Sterility, 115(5), 1116–1125. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (2011). Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people.
  120. Tishelman, A. C., Sutter, M. E., Chen, D., Sampson, A., Nahata, L., Kolbuck, V. D., & Quinn, G. P. (2019). Health care provider perceptions of fertility preservation barriers and challenges with transgender patients and families: Qualitative responses to an international survey. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 36(3), 579–588. 10.1007/s10815-018-1395-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Tornello, S. L., & Bos, H. (2017). Parenting intentions among transgender individuals. LGBT Health, 4(2), 115–120. 10.1089/lgbt.2016.0153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Unger, C. A. (2015). Care of the transgender patient: A survey of gynecologists’ current knowledge and practice. Journal of Women’s Health (2002), 24(2), 114–118. 10.1089/jwh.2014.4918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. von Doussa, H., Power, J., & Riggs, D. (2015). Imagining parenthood: The possibilities and experiences of parenthood among transgender people. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(9), 1119–1131. 10.1080/13691058.2015.1042919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Vyas, N., Douglas, C., Mann, C., Weimer, A., & Quinn, M. (2021). Access, barriers, and decisional regret in pursuit of fertility preservation among transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Fertility and Sterility, 115(4), 1029–1034. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Wamboldt, R., Shuster, S., & Sidhu, B. S. (2021). Lactation induction in a transgender woman wanting to breastfeed: Case report. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 106(5), 2047–2052. 10.1210/clinem/dgaa976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Wierckx, K., Stuyver, I., Weyers, S., Hamada, A., Agarwal, A., De Sutter, P., & T’Sjoen, G. (2012a). Sperm freezing in transsexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1069–1071. 10.1007/s10508-012-0012-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Wierckx, K., Van Caenegem, E., Pennings, G., Elaut, E., Dedecker, D., Van de Peer, F., Weyers, S., De Sutter, P., & T’Sjoen, G. (2012b). Reproductive wish in transsexual men. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 27(2), 483–487. 10.1093/humrep/der406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Wolfe-Roubatis, E., & Spatz, D. L. (2015). Transgender men and lactation: What nurses need to know. MCN. The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 40(1), 32–38. 10.1097/NMC.0000000000000097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Wyns, C., Bergh, C., Calhaz-Jorge, C., De Geyter, C., Kupka, M. S., Motrenko, T., Rugescu, I., Smeenk, J., Tandler-Schneider, A., Vidakovic, S., & Goossens, V, European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM)‡ for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). (2020). Art in Europe, 2016: Results generated from European registries by Eshre. Human Reproduction Open, 2020(3), hoaa032. 10.1093/hropen/hoaa032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Transgender Health are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES