New insights into the goals of transgender male versus non-binary individuals considering metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery.

Background: Understanding patient goals for metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery (MaPGAS) is paramount to achieving satisfactory, preference-sensitive outcomes, yet there is a lack of understanding of MaPGAS priorities and how these may vary between transgender men and non-binary individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB).

Aim: To understand the surgical goals of transgender men and non-binary individuals AFAB considering MaPGAS.

Methods: An online survey was created following literature review and qualitative interviews and distributed via social media and a community health center to participants AFAB aged ≥18 years who had considered but not yet undergone MaPGAS. We collected demographics, surgical history, Likert ratings of importance of 14 possible MaPGAS goals, and selection of the 5 most important goals. Differences in goal importance ratings were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Responses to an open-ended question on additional MaPGAS goal considerations were thematically analyzed by 2 reviewers.

Outcomes: A total of 248 eligible participants completed the survey; participants included transgender men (64%) and non-binary individuals (36%).

Results: Both groups rated maintaining tactile and erogenous sensations as top priorities. Significant differences emerged in half of the goals, with transgender men more likely to place importance on being seen as male, public restroom comfort, peeing through the tip of the penis, standing urination through the fly, and resolution of gender dysphoria. Non-binary individuals were more likely to place importance on retaining a vaginal canal to receive penetration and for gender identity affirmation. These differences in goal prioritization between the 2 groups were most apparent when individuals provided their top 5 goals. In open-ended responses, aesthetics was a major consideration for transgender men, sexual pleasure was a consideration for non-binary individuals, and complications were cited as major concerns by both groups.

Clinical implications: Individual MaPGAS goals should be incorporated into preoperative counseling and may vary by gender identity.

Strengths and limitations: This is the largest study to our knowledge evaluating patient MaPGAS goals and comparing gender identity cohorts. Our results incorporate qualitative open-ended feedback and underscore the importance of understanding patient-specific MaPGAS goals to better facilitate personalized preoperative counseling. Results will be used to guide decision support tool development. Limitations include the cross-sectional study design and reduced socioeconomic diversity.

Conclusions: While maintaining tactile and erogenous sensation and minimizing surgical complications were universally important goals, significant variations emerged between transgender men and non-binary individuals' MaPGAS goals highlighting the need for personalized preoperative counseling.