Disclosure and comfort during genetic counseling sessions with LGBTQ+ patients: An updated assessment

Transgender and gender diverse patients' experiences with pregnancy-related genetics discussions: A qualitative study

Reproductive healthcare experiences for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals are often characterized by cisheteronormative biases and inadequate support. Despite growing recognition of the need for gender-inclusive care, there remains a dearth of research exploring TGD individuals' perspectives on pregnancy-related genetic discussions with healthcare providers. This study aimed to address this gap by investigating TGD individuals' experiences with pregnancy-related genetic discussions, focusing on the challenges they face and strategies for improving care. The study employed a qualitative approach, including demographic surveys and semi-structured interviews with questions centered on pregnancy-related genetic discussions, to gather data from 15 TGD participants. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis with a queer theoretical lens to identify key themes and insights. The findings revealed pervasive cisheteronormative biases in pregnancy-related genetics discussions, including providers misgendering patients during routine genetics explanations and conflation of sex and gender. Participants highlighted the lack of information on the effects of testosterone therapy on pregnancies and expressed discomfort in gendered clinic spaces. Participants advocated for gender-inclusive training for all healthcare staff and the adoption of affirming practices to create more inclusive healthcare environments. This study underscores the urgent need to address systemic biases and shortcomings in reproductive genetics healthcare for TGD individuals. By prioritizing gender-inclusive training and promoting affirming clinical environments, healthcare providers can work towards ensuring equitable access to reproductive and genetic healthcare for TGD patients.

Parental questions about sex chromosome aneuploidies regarding sex, gender, and sexual orientation as reported by genetic counselors in a prenatal setting

The introduction of cell-free DNA screening has resulted in increased prenatal identification of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs). This study aimed to evaluate genetic counselor experiences disclosing SCAs positive prenatal screening or testing results and genetic counselor-reported parental questions regarding sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Forty-eight prenatal genetic counselors completed the survey. When asked to quantify their experiences, 97.9% of counselors reported disclosing a SCAs positive screen result within the previous year, and 81.3% disclosed a diagnostic result. Of those counselors, 53.8% reported always or often receiving parental questions about sex, 33% always or often about gender, and 25% always or often regarding sexual orientation. Counselors were asked to share examples of parental questions following a positive screen or diagnostic testing for SCAs. Parental questions were stratified by karyotype and content analysis revealed questions about the fetus' sex, anatomy, reproduction, being cisgender, gender expression, behavior, being transgender, and sexual orientation. The examples of parental questions provided by genetic counselors suggested some parents may have misconceptions about the intersection of SCAs with sex, gender, and sexual orientation following prenatal screening or diagnostic testing. The majority of counselors (83.3%) agreed to some extent that they desired further education on responding to parental questions about SCAs. Findings from this research suggest a need for genetic counseling strategies that accurately and respectfully discuss SCAs in the context of sex, gender, and sexual orientation with prenatal patients.

Use of gender-inclusive language in genetic counseling to optimize patient care

Providing welcoming, inclusive, and culturally competent care is essential for genetic counselors (GCs) to serve the needs of all patients, including transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals. Inclusive language creates welcoming healthcare spaces and improves health outcomes for TGNB individuals. Training on gender-affirming healthcare can increase knowledge, comfort, and self-efficacy working with TGNB patients. Using a mixed-method survey, this study assessed 65 GCs' gender-inclusive communication practices and elucidated reasons for discomfort using language to determine how language builds trust and fosters patient-provider relationships, ascertain differences between specialties, and identify potential gaps in education and professional development. This study found that approximately one-third of GCs are comfortable using gender-inclusive language and just over half regularly use it with patients. Most GCs do not share their pronouns or ask patients theirs, which was not correlated with comfort levels or frequency of using gender-inclusive language. There were no significant differences based on specialty. Thematic analysis of open responses revealed GCs used gendered language to promote shared language and for clarity, some mentioning sex assigned at birth was relevant for risk assessment. Most felt the impact of gendered language depended on the patient's perspective. Twenty-five percent noted gendered language was familiar for most patients and 40% recognized negative impacts on TGNB individuals. Most GCs desired more gender-inclusivity training even though >95% had some type previously. Those who had gender-inclusivity training in their genetic counseling program were more comfortable using gender-inclusive language and were more likely to share their pronouns with patients. This study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating GCs' desire for more gender-inclusivity education and highlights the potential importance of having this education integrated into genetic counseling training programs. GCs should continue to incorporate gender-inclusive language into their practice in concordance with the tenants of the Reciprocal Engagement Model.

Policy and laboratory practice: How quality control procedures for genetic testing perpetuate biological essentialism and discrimination against transgender, gender diverse, and intersex people

Transgender, gender diverse, and intersex (TGDI) individuals face significant health disparities due to individual and systemic experiences of discrimination, impacting their access to healthcare. While clinical genetic testing has become increasingly accessible to the general population, the field of clinical genetics perpetuates a narrative of biological essentialism, which creates barriers for TGDI patients. Biological essentialism upholds that sex is a binary, fixed, and innate characteristic, a misconception that has been historically weaponized against the TGDI community in both individual experiences of discrimination and anti-trans legislation, among other systemic forms of oppression. Rejecting this discriminatory framework requires careful consideration of, and changes to, long-established practices that often go unquestioned, such as quality control metrics in genetic testing, in order to improve TGDI patients' outcomes and access to genetic services. The sex-check, comparing an individuals reported sex against their sex chromosomes, is an example of how laboratory genetics practices reinforce the narrative that sex is determined purely by chromosomal composition. Additionally, the sex-check "outs" TGDI people in clinical settings, creating a discriminatory and unsafe environment for these patients. Alternative quality control procedures and inclusive practices, such as clearer delineation of sex and gender on test requisition forms, are proposed to improve TGDI patient experiences. Genetic counselors and other clinical providers have a responsibility to address historical discrimination and advocate for changes to laboratory practice, so as to create affirming experiences for TGDI patients.

Transgender and gender diverse individuals' perspectives on discussions of fetal sex chromosomes in obstetrics care

In the past decade, prenatal cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA) has become ubiquitous as a screening tool for fetal aneuploidy and sex chromosomes. Healthcare provider (HCP) discussions and public perceptions of sex and gender uniquely impact transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals, and existing cfDNA guidelines lack recommendations regarding how to discuss sex and gender prenatally. The aim of this exploratory qualitative study was to examine TGD individuals' opinions regarding fetal sex chromosome disclosure sessions. Twelve semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with TGD individuals regarding their perspectives on the discussion of fetal sex chromosomes by HCPs within the prenatal setting. Interviews were coded and analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach, generating four major themes: (1) Current practices in prenatal care exclude gender diverse people; (2) HCPs' responsibility to de-gender discussions of sex chromosomes in prenatal care; (3) HCPs' responsibility to acknowledge gender diversity; and (4) HCPs' influence on societal perceptions of sex and gender. More guidance is needed from professional societies regarding best practices for HCP discussions of sex chromosomes, sex, and gender. Participants recommended HCPs educate patients about sex chromosomes and their relevance to health while avoiding the conflation of sex and gender terms. Additionally, there is an acute need for trans-inclusive prenatal healthcare. Ultimately, HCPs' and organizations are in a prime position to deconstruct rigid gender binaries and promote societal inclusion of TGD people.

Toward depathologizing queerness: An analysis of queer oppression in clinical genetics

Critically examining the way that the field of clinical genetics has impacted queer communities offers the field an opportunity to strengthen our commitment to inclusive high-quality care to all patients, families, and communities. This article reviews the origins of clinical genetics and genetic counseling in the eugenics movement and how this ontology promoted harmful medical practices grounded in assumptions of what is "normal." We critically examine existing clinical genetics practices and how commonly used binary frameworks for gender, sex, and sexuality perpetuate heteronormative, cisnormative, and bioessentialist assumptions. In order to move toward queer inclusivity, the genetic counseling field must first take accountability for past injustices. Restorative justice and trauma-informed approaches offer a way to engage with the queer community and to begin to rectify the history of medical harm. Through our analysis, we advocate for expanding efforts to depathologize queerness, promote bodily autonomy, and provide equitable healthcare for the queer community.

A qualitative study exploring LGBTQ genetic counseling students' relationships with peers and faculty in graduate school

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ) students in healthcare professional programs face discrimination in their training, leading them to hide their identities and hindering their ability to form as meaningful connections with their classmates and faculty as non-LGBTQ students. To date, no studies have been published characterizing the LGBTQ student experience in genetic counseling programs. However, other historically oppressed groups such as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) genetic counseling students report feelings of isolation and negative impacts on mental health due to their racial or ethnic identity. This study explored how LGBTQ identity impacted relationships between genetic counseling students and their classmates and faculty in graduate school. In this qualitative study using constructivist grounded theory, 13 LGBTQ students and recent graduates of Canadian and American accredited genetic counseling programs were interviewed via videoconferencing. Participants reported determinants in self-disclosing their LGBTQ identity to their classmates and faculty and described ways in which their LGBTQ identity impacted relationships with individuals in their training programs. In particular, many described an overall heteronormative training environment, a hesitation to disclose their identity to faculty due to the professional nature of the relationship, and a sense of isolation. Participants also described the ways in which intersecting minoritized identities impacted their experiences as an LGBTQ student. This research contributes to the minimal literature about LGBTQ genetic counseling student experiences and has implications for addressing cisheteronormative curricula and attitudes in genetic counseling programs.