4.2 Article

The double-edged sword of PCOS and gender: exploring gender-diverse experiences of polycystic ovary syndrome

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/26895269.2023.2183448

Keywords

Gender identity; non-binary; polycystic ovary syndrome; qualitative research; transgender

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study addresses the knowledge gap about the experiences of gender-diverse individuals with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), which has previously focused on cisgender women. The study reveals that PCOS can be seen as a burden, an occasion, and a benefit. It highlights the lived experiences of gender-diverse individuals and provides insights into the gendered perception and treatment of PCOS.
Background: Past research on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), a chronic endocrine condition, has focused on the experiences of cisgender women.Aims: The purpose of the present study was to address the knowledge gap about gender-diverse individuals by exploring their lived experiences with PCOS and to better understand if and how their gender identity affected their experience of PCOS.Methods: To explore this, we recruited nine non-binary people and one transgender man with a PCOS diagnosis for qualitative interviews.Results: Three overarching themes emerged: PCOS as a burden, PCOS as an occasion, and PCOS as a benefit. While some aspects of PCOS created an additional burden for our participants, other symptoms such as excess body and facial hair could be empowering and affirming, revealing a positive aspect of this chronic condition.Conclusion: This study is the first to describe the lived experiences of gender-diverse individuals with PCOS, uncovering burdens as well as some benefits. Future research in this population may reveal not only the particulars of what PCOS is like for them but also more generalizable insights into the highly gendered perception and treatment of PCOS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available