Apr 162014
 

One of the premier medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine, regularly has perspective/opinion pieces. For a pre-med like me, they can be some of the most valuable pages in the journal — they can be windows into medical practice, public policy and the study and practice of medicine. I read them regularly, since my wife got me a subscription to NEJM. Most aren’t related to gender and sexual minority health, so I haven’t addressed them here much. But in the April 10th edition of NEJM, a treasure! Gilbert Gonzales did a good summary of the intersection between same-sex marriage and health.

Many health journals, including NEJM, tend to live behind a pay wall. This particular article, thankfully, is not. But in the interests of public knowledge and discourse, I wanted to summarize some of the interesting points in this article. A heads up: this is a distinctly United States-focused article.

  • Despite recent advances, roughly 60% of the US population lives in a state that prohibits same-sex marriage
  • There are significant health disparities between LGBT and heterosexual/cisgender people, as shown by the 2011 Institute of Medicine report on LGBT health (which I summarized in 3 parts at the time).
  • Discriminatory environments lead to poorer health outcomes. Example: LGBT people in states that ban same-sex marriage have higher rates of depression, anxiety, and alcohol use than straight/cis people in the same states. By the same token, states where same-sex marriage (e.g., MA and CA) was legalized show a drop in mental health care visits for some GLBT people (e.g., gay men).
  • Legalizing same-sex marriage improves access to health insurance for both same-sex spouses and children of same-sex parents.
  • The Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from denying health insurance coverage because of sexual orientation, transgender identity, or pre-existing conditions like HIV.
  • The recent decision on DOMA (United States v Windsor) means couples in a same-sex marriage get taxed like other married couples. This lowers the tax burden of health care costs and health insurance.
  • Health benefits of same-sex marriage should be included in discussion of marriage equality.

All good things to point out, and good to see in such a mainstream medical journal.

We’re lucky enough that the NEJM has decided to have this article be open access. So if you can, read it to form your own opinions!

And as always…  Stay healthy, stay safe, and have fun!

Jul 022013
 

CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 by flickr user aling_

Time for the last month’s news. Hope you all are having fun out there. This month’s image is the theoretical flower for the month: the rose.

Gender-related news…

  • A preliminary report presented at the Endocrine Society meeting in June appears to confirm that cross-sex hormone therapy is safe in the short term (12 months). Summary.
  • Finasteride, a commonly used anti-androgen used to prevent hair loss in both cisgender men and transgender women, has now been reported to reduce alcohol consumption. Summary.
  • GnRH agonists, also called “puberty blockers”, have been shown to be safe in one study. The prime concern for years has been about bone health. Previous studies had shown a drop in bone density while on the medication. This new study confirms that bone density returns to normal after going off GnRH agonists. Summary. This study will be covered more thoroughly in a later blog post.
  • The folks at Skepchick did a wonderful piece on a recent news article on an intersex person. Check it out!

Sexuality

  • In high doses, testosterone appears to help cisgender women retain their sex drive after hysterectomy/oophorectomy. The rub? Testosterone should be given either through the skin (creams, patches, etc) or by intramuscular injection. Summary.
  • Many cisgender men are now being treated for “low testosterone levels”… when their testosterone levels were never checked. This could be very risky. Summary.
  • Exodus International has apologized to gay people and closed down. Exodus was well known for its promotion of reparative therapy for gay people. Summary.
  • The American Medical Association has come forward arguing that the ban against blood donation by men who have had sex with men (the “gay blood ban”) should be lifted. Summary. The FDA recently reviewed their policy, but decided that the ban should stay. Currently in the United States, any man (male-bodied) who has had sex with a man since 1977 is ineligible to give blood. Additionally, any woman (female-bodied) who has sex with a man who had sex with a man since 1977 is ineligible to donate for the next 12 months. The FDA’s policy on trans folk is unclear, but some trans folk report being turned away because of their gender identity.
  • A case report of “foot orgasm syndrome” was reported in the literature. A woman reported having orgasms whenever her feet were stimulated. Summary.
  • A study found that people who practice BDSM (bondage, dominance/submission, sadomasochism) are not psychologically “sick”. Summary. I’ll be covering this study in a later post. It’s interesting and need a lot of breaking down.
  • A study by Durex reports that the vast majority of people enjoy sex most when they are emotionally attached to their partner(s). Summary. Because a sex study conducted by a condom maker is totally not biased.

And the biggest item of news? The US Supreme Court declared that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. Federal and state governments are currently scrambling to figure out all the ramifications. And Proposition 8, here in California, was effectively reversed. Marriage equality now exists in my home state. Yipee!

Did I miss a piece of news? Let me know in the comments!

May 192013
 

I got back from the 2013 National Transgender Health Summit (NTHS) in Oakland last night. What a fabulous conference! I’m still processing a lot of my notes, but wanted to give a quick report on it before I flood the blog with new resources.

First some basic information. NTHS is cosponsored by UCSF’s Center of Excellence for Transgender Health and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. It’s designed for medical professionals, mental health professionals, advocates, health administrators, students, and others. I can’t speak for previous years, but this year it was a two-day event. Sessions were broken into various tracks: research, medical, mental health, policy, and special topics. And boy, did we cover quite a lot! And, as always, I wanted to be in five different places all at once.

Aside from the official session topics, though, there were some themes that stood out to me…

  • There’s a very strong need for cross-cultural trans care. Trans care, like lots of medicine, has been focused on white people. I admit to being guilty of this too! I don’t know how being trans is handled in, for example, an urban latino/a community, and I don’t know how I can best respond to those needs as a future health care provider. I met some folks who were involved in the Trans People of Color Coalition, and I hope to not only educate myself but bring more awareness to my posts here.
  • There’s a disconnect in some areas between cultural knowledge about medical treatments in trans communities and medical knowledge. I want to give a shout out to Trystan Cotten, author of Hung Jury, for bringing attention to this within trans male communities. One of his examples? Something new for me, certainly: there are anecdotal reports that some trans men can have penetrative sex after metoidioplasty. Sounds like there needs to be a community-level conversation.
  • It sounds so far like the ICD-11 system will handle both the transgender/transsexual diagnoses and the paraphilia diagnoses much better than the previous ICDs and certainly better than the DSM system. More details when the preliminary criteria are out for comment.
  • Insurance coverages for trans-related care may improve with the Affordable Care Act. Again, more on this as information becomes more available.
  • There is a lot of research going on! Yay! I’ll try to link to some of the studies I heard about in a follow up.

Plus so much more! It was really exciting. I hope to post again with more information, links to lots of new resources and shout outs for on-going studies and organizations.

Oct 102012
 

On September 30, 2012 Governor Jerry Brown signed SB-1172 into law. This law (full text here) prohibits health professionals from attempting to change the sexual orientation of anyone under age 18. This is a fabulous step.

I looked at the text of the law, and the following things stood out to me:

  • There are no fines or jail time for violating the law. It says that attempts to change sexual orientation in minors “shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.” To me, that’s essentially a slap on the wrist. I’m not a legal expert . . . but I found it to be a little disappointing.
  • The law only applies to mental health professionals. It does not appear to affect spiritual advisors like priests.
  • The law also prohibits attempts to change gender expression. It doesn’t, however, prohibit attempts to change gender identity.

So I do see some loopholes in the law. It’s not perfect. But it is a good step to protecting our vulnerable LGB youth.

Mar 072011
 

A report recently came out looking at trends in the medical literature regarding LGBT people. This is a meta-analysis (i.e., it is an article summarizing the original research of others – it is a secondary source) that looked at articles from 1950-2007.

Findings include:

  • Estimations of percentage of the population that is LGBT ranges from 2 to 10%, depending on the survey. In the United States, this should be between 6 and 30.4 million people.
  • Lesbians have a higher risk for breast and gynecological cancers. Gay men are at higher risk for anal cancer. We don’t know if these are because of genetics (homosexuality may have a genetic root), sexual practices, or culture.
  • The biggest barrier to health care for LGBT patients is stigmatization by health care providers, because of poor education and training: “Providers as a whole need to better understand the distinct difference between LGBT status and persons with ‘high risk’ sexual behaviors.” (pg 166)
  • There is an overemphasis in the literature on sexual behavior-related topics. About 1/3rd of all papers published about LGBT people are about HIV, AIDS, STIs, and other related illnesses. This is by far the biggest group of papers. About 13% of papers are about mental health issues, and another 12% are stigmatizing articles about the causes and treatment of homosexuality. All other topics are covered by less than 9% of papers. For example, only 3.28% of papers deal with patient-health care provider interactions, and 2.66% deal with transsexual issues. This overemphasis means that we don’t have enough information about other illnesses that affect LGBT people.
  • Some research specifically excludes LGBT people with no clear explanation or reasoning behind it. This is actually against NIH research policy – populations canNOT be excluded without reason.

Citation:

Snyder, J. E. (2011). Trend Analysis of Medical Publications About LGBT Persons: 1950-2007. Journal of Homosexuality, 58: 164-188.