Use of body mass index (BMI) as a health care metric is controversial, especially in candidacy assessments for gender-affirming surgery. When considering experiences of fat trans individuals, it is important to advocate for equitable divisions of responsibility for and recognition of systemic fat phobia. This commentary on a case suggests strategies for increasing equitable access to safe surgery for all body types. If surgeons use BMI thresholds, simultaneous effort must be made to advocate for data collection so that surgical candidacy criteria are evidence-based and equitably applied. The American Medical Association designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ available through the AMA Ed Hub TM . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.Case ZZ is a trans man and a patient of Dr S, a surgeon at a clinic offering gender-affirming services, including hormone therapy, chest surgeries, and genital surgeries. During 5 years of hormone treatment, ZZ's weight increased to a point at which he now has a BMI of 35, which is clinically considered class II obesity. 1 As a result, he does not qualify for most gender-affirming surgeries (GAS) offered by Dr S at the clinic. ZZ is distressed and asks, "What was the point of hormone therapy if all it did was make me so fat I can't get surgery?" Dr S considers how to respond.
CommentaryTransgender, nonbinary, and other non-cisgender (henceforth referred to as trans) individuals with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 (referred to clinically as "obesity"), 1 could be denied access to GAS 2 due to systemic bias and social inequity. High BMI is associated with conditions such as sleep apnea, 3,4,5 type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, and certain types of cancers. 6 It is also associated with perioperative issues, including surgical site infection, 7 increased operative time, 8 and greater technical difficulty when operating 9,10 and hence is often a primary factor in GAS candidacy. 9 However, this risk metric can obscure other multifactorial causes 11,12,13 that