Defining typical appearance as a goal of health service provision is harmful and unnecessary for traits that are stigmatized but neither harmful nor distressing.

Tension between realistic goals and unrealistic views about how to achieve them is compounded when patients are eager to revise a prior surgeon’s gender-affirming procedure.

Body mass index cutoffs are routinely used to assess eligibility for gender-affirming surgeries, yet they are not empirically based.

Neurobiological markers raise complex questions about what it means to be “at risk.”

Neuromodulation has ethical implications for self-identity and public communication of scientific findings.