Sexual function and dysfunction in the LGBTQIA+ community—including before and after gender-affirming surgery: recommendations from the Fifth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2024)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines focused on sexual (dys)function for the LGBTQIA+ (ie, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual) community, including before and after gender-affirming surgery, are still scarce. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview and recommendations for sexual (dys)function among individuals with diverse sexual orientations, transgender and gender-diverse individuals, and intersex individuals/individuals with differences of sexual development (DSD). METHODS: A committee of experts conducted a comprehensive review of the literature, focusing on scientific publications since the last consultation, for the fifth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. RESULTS: Researches that considered populations with diverse sexual orientations were reviewed and largely focused on sexual satisfaction/pleasure, sexual functioning, and sexual difficulties. Additional topics included relationship and psychological dimensions, sexual functioning during receptive anal sex, chemsex, minority stress, asexuality, and sexuality in older adulthood. The main challenges are related to small sample sizes and mostly cross-sectional study designs that limit the generalization of findings. Research focused on sexual (dys)function among transgender and gender-diverse individuals tends to focus on a medical perspective of sexual function and is often based on cisgender models or methodology. Research has also focused attention on the relationship between medical interventions for gender-affirming care (eg, hormone therapy, surgery) and has often included cross-sectional designs or short-term follow-up. Current research also highlights the unique facets of sexual (dys)function that appear important to gender-diverse individuals, such as relational and body image factors. Fewer articles focused on individuals with intersex traits/DSD, and these included a diverse approach to the samples studied and methodology used. Much of this research focused on the impact of medical interventions (eg, hormone therapy, surgery) on sexual satisfaction and function. Across populations, there were limited validated measures of sexual (dys)function. CONCLUSION: Overall, the main challenges in the field are related to methodological gaps, as acknowledged in this review, and a summary of the literature is provided. Diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as ethical considerations, are addressed, and clinical recommendations for supporting the sexual well-being of individuals with diverse sexual orientations, transgender and gender-diverse individuals, and intersex individuals/individuals with DSD are presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".