Cisgender (gender identity corresponds to sex assigned at birth) males and females exhibit different rates of various skin diseases [5]. Increased awareness of gender differences is central to constructing mechanisms for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy [5]. Those assigned male at birth tend to have higher sebum content, thicker skin, and deeper facial wrinkles than those assigned female [6]. However, research regarding gender and dermatologic care is limited. Most articles discuss gender in terms of cisgendered participants. This research is likely based on the conflation of biological sex and gender identity in electronic health records [7]. Systemic change within electronic health records is a critical step for gathering gender-precise data.

Gender-affirming therapies may induce drastic skin changes. Hormone therapies increase the risk of acne vulgaris, androgenetic alopecia, excessive sebum production, melasma, and hirsutism [8]. Dermatologists must be conscious of gender-affirming treatments in order to help minimize associated risks.

Researchers believe numerous factors contribute to skin differences between gender identities [8]. Transmale and transfemale populations (gender identity does not correspond with sex assigned at birth) face underdiagnosed conditions resulting from underresearched gender-affirming therapies [8]. This representation disparity is a growing area of investigation for its contribution to gender inequality.

Gender minority populations also face health care barriers from noninclusive treatment eligibility models. For instance, despite the increased prevalence of acne vulgaris in transgender populations, iPledge medication guidelines for isotretinoin use sex assigned at birth and require contraception to remain eligible [8].

Although increasing female participation in clinical trials is widely supported, data on gender minority participation is nonexistent. Additionally, the risks of some conditions fluctuate depending on the stage of gender-affirming therapies. Although existing data sets may not use inclusive models of gender identity assessment, there is value in their implementation given the prospect of large-scale observational studies and meta-analyses in which these variables could be better assessed. As gender minority populations grow, these inclusive models will help physicians support all patients while ensuring that salient trends and health impacts are captured by research analyses.

About 28% of transgender individuals delay seeking preventative care because of mistreatment by health care workers; thus, inclusive language is important to build trust in these communities [9]. Medical professionals should receive training in gender-inclusive terminology to foster a welcoming environment where patients feel comfortable sharing information relevant to their health [7]. Physicians should avoid assumptions and ask patients about their preferred terminology [7]. Figure 1 displays a “Genderbread Person” and provides guidance on the terminology used in this paper.

Misgendering patients can have profound effects on patients’ health and safety and can damage the patient-provider relationship [11]. As ideas about gender identity evolve, mistakes will inevitably happen; when mistakes occur, sincere and brief apologies should be made, with an assurance that they will not recur [11].