How likely is that patient to feel safe asking questions in the future (if they returned to that doctor at all) given this cold reception to a very normal question like this?

So this patient saw a provider multiple times around chronic knee issues, and they didn't run imaging as a result of any of those visits, instead laying the blame for the pain on patient lifestyle factors... it's really frustrating to see that they likely could have figured this out sooner without a lot of patient invalidation.

A few years ago, a friend and I started dating. We both approached our PCPs for STI testing since it had been 6+ months since our last tests - best practice in our respective communities.

When my partner described our relevant behaviors to her provider, he initially favored only some tests she had proposed, but when my partner additionally disclosed I was trans to her provider, he suddenly was in favor of a larger panel of tests, even though I had not had other partners for some time and had shared my previous STI testing results. Mere knowledge of my trans status changed how the same behaviors were perceived in terms of risk to my partner. The exchange damaged rapport between that partner and her provider; when I heard about the exchange later, I remember feeling hurt by such a clear example of how my membership within a class alters provider perceptions.

So, to ensure that community means are being met, involve people from those communities in education aimed at serving those communities and in focusing research on those communities so that it is actually addressing community needs.

Gosh, that's a heck of an ethical dilemma. I'm at least a little sympathetic to the idea that urology may have wondered at the patient's mental state and ability to consent to simply completing the orchiectomy (maybe less involved than the repair?), but knowing she was incarcerated and the state they were in, I would hope for a better outcome than this.

I know there are complaints people justifiably have around the 'develop many cultural competencies' model in medical training, but I find it really interesting that the parallel shift from educational standards oriented at outcomes rather than didactic goals may have contributed to a gap in provider LGBTQI+ fluency.

I think this topic has not historically been a priority for funding inside NIMH and other federal health agencies prior to about 2022, when those outcomes weren't tied to a specific disease. I think things are starting to change after Biden's executive order in 2022 mandating collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data in major federal data collection efforts, which was previously a barrier in a number of efforts to collect 'official' government statistics in related areas like educational attainment, etc. One question I have as I reflect on this little note is, on what basis is this remark being made, and what are the limitations of the source (re: long acknolwedgment of health disparities)?

One thing that isn't always apparent to study authors is that if you ask questions in a way that others people, they may simply not participate in your study. Given the demographic questions on this table, it's quite possible I would have chosen not to proceed with filling out this questions, were I one of the people polled in this paper, though in my case I think it would have depended on what background information I had going into filling out the forms.

I would suggest using "trans woman" and "trans man" over transwoman or transman. The space is significant for a lot of people; 'trans woman' uses trans as an adjective that modifies woman, and places it on even footing with e.g. cis woman. Most often I see this usage without the space in contexts like "women and transwomen", which, as a trans person I generally feel pretty frustrated with.