ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Sex Hormone Levels in Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Women: Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis

Springer Nature
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Lesbian and bisexual women may have different levels of sex hormones compared to heterosexual women. We systematically reviewed comparative studies measuring any sex hormones. A protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO—CRD42017072436) and searches conducted in six databases. Any relevant empirical studies published within the last 50 years reporting any circulating sex hormones in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women were included, with no language or setting restrictions. Inclusions, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of hormone levels, using standardized-mean-differences (SMD) were conducted where five or more studies reported results. From 1236 citations, 24 full papers were examined and 14 studies of mixed designs included, 12 in women without known ovarian problems. Hormones were measured in plasma (n = 9), saliva (n = 4), and urine (n = 2) and included androstenedione, luteinizing hormone, estradiol, pregnanediol, progesterone, testosterone, and several other hormones. Most studies were small, biased, and had considerable heterogeneity. Few found statistically significant differences between groups. All-sample meta-analysis showed increased testosterone in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women (n = 9; SMD = 0.90; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.22, 1.57, I2 = 84%). This was the only difference found. We conclude that the small amount of heterogeneous research, from 50 years to date, suggests little discernable difference in sex hormone levels between lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women excepting possibly higher testosterone. A large-scale primary study would be required before placing any certainty in the findings or their implications.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dear Author,
Here are the proofs of your article.
You can submit your corrections online, via e-mail or by fax.
For online submission please insert your corrections in the online correction form. Always
indicate the line number to which the correction refers.
You can also insert your corrections in the proof PDF and email the annotated PDF.
For fax submission, please ensure that your corrections are clearly legible. Use a fine black
pen and write the correction in the margin, not too close to the edge of the page.
Remember to note the journal title, article number, and your name when sending your
response via e-mail or fax.
Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author names
and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown.
Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your answers/
corrections.
Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included. Also
check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary material if
applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript.
The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious consequences.
Please take particular care that all such details are correct.
Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally introduced
forms that follow the journal’s style.
Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are not
allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact the
Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof.
If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder.
Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your
corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further changes
are, therefore, not possible.
The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue.
Please note
After online publication, subscribers (personal/institutional) to this journal will have access to the
complete article via the DOI using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/[DOI].
If you would like to know when your article has been published online, take advantage of our free
alert service. For registration and further information go to: http://www.link.springer.com.
Due to the electronic nature of the procedure, the manuscript and the original figures will only be
returned to you on special request. When you return your corrections, please inform us if you would
like to have these documents returned.
Metadata of the article that will be visualized in
OnlineFirst
ArticleTitle Sex Hormone Levels in Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Women: Systematic Review and Exploratory
Meta-Analysis
Article Sub-Title
Article CopyRight Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
(This will be the copyright line in the final PDF)
Journal Name Archives of Sexual Behavior
Corresponding Author Family Name Meads
Particle
Given Name Catherine
Suffix
Division Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care
Organization Anglia Ruskin University
Address East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK
Phone
Fax
Email catherine.meads@anglia.ac.uk
URL
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2368-0665
Author Family Name Harris
Particle
Given Name Alexandra
Suffix
Division Division of Women’s Health, Women’s Health Academic Centre
Organization King’s College London and King’s Health Partners
Address 10th Floor North Wing, St Thomas’ Hospital Campus, London, SE1 7EH,
UK
Phone
Fax
Email lexie_harris@icloud.com
URL
ORCID
Author Family Name Bewley
Particle
Given Name Susan
Suffix
Division Division of Women’s Health, Women’s Health Academic Centre
Organization King’s College London and King’s Health Partners
Address 10th Floor North Wing, St Thomas’ Hospital Campus, London, SE1 7EH,
UK
Phone
Fax
Email susan.bewley@kcl.ac.uk
URL
ORCID
Schedule
Received 4 September 2018
Revised 7 April 2020
Accepted 11 April 2020
Abstract Lesbian and bisexual women may have different levels of sex hormones compared to heterosexual women.
We systematically reviewed comparative studies measuring any sex hormones. A protocol was
prospectively registered (PROSPERO—CRD42017072436) and searches conducted in six databases. Any
relevant empirical studies published within the last 50 years reporting any circulating sex hormones in
sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women were included, with no language or setting
restrictions. Inclusions, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Random-
effects meta-analyses of hormone levels, using standardized-mean-differences (SMD) were conducted
where five or more studies reported results. From 1236 citations, 24 full papers were examined and 14
studies of mixed designs included, 12 in women without known ovarian problems. Hormones were
measured in plasma (n = 9), saliva (n = 4), and urine (n = 2) and included androstenedione, luteinizing
hormone, estradiol, pregnanediol, progesterone, testosterone, and several other hormones. Most studies
were small, biased, and had considerable heterogeneity. Few found statistically significant differences
between groups. All-sample meta-analysis showed increased testosterone in sexual minority women
compared to heterosexual women (n = 9; SMD = 0.90; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.22, 1.57, I 2 = 84%).
This was the only difference found. We conclude that the small amount of heterogeneous research, from
50 years to date, suggests little discernable difference in sex hormone levels between lesbian, bisexual, and
heterosexual women excepting possibly higher testosterone. A large-scale primary study would be required
before placing any certainty in the findings or their implications.
Keywords (separated by '-') Lesbian - Bisexual women - Sex hormones - Systematic review - Meta-analysis
Footnote Information Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-020-01717-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Archives of Sexual Behavior
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01717-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Sex Hormone Levels inLesbian, Bisexual, andHeterosexual Women:
Systematic Review andExploratory Meta-Analysis
AlexandraHarris1· SusanBewley1· CatherineMeads2
Received: 4 September 2018 / Revised: 7 April 2020 / Accepted: 11 April 2020
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
Lesbian and bisexual women may have different levels of sex hormones compared to heterosexual women. We systemati-
cally reviewed comparative studies measuring any sex hormones. A protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO—
CRD42017072436) and searches conducted in six databases. Any relevant empirical studies published within the last 50years
reporting any circulating sex hormones in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women were included, with no
language or setting restrictions. Inclusions, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Random-
effects meta-analyses of hormone levels, using standardized-mean-differences (SMD) were conducted where five or more
studies reported results. From 1236 citations, 24 full papers were examined and 14 studies of mixed designs included, 12 in
women without known ovarian problems. Hormones were measured in plasma (n = 9), saliva (n = 4), and urine (n = 2) and
included androstenedione, luteinizing hormone, estradiol, pregnanediol, progesterone, testosterone, and several other hor-
mones. Most studies were small, biased, and had considerable heterogeneity. Few found statistically significant differences
between groups. All-sample meta-analysis showed increased testosterone in sexual minority women compared to hetero-
sexual women (n = 9; SMD = 0.90; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.22, 1.57, I2 = 84%). This was the only difference found.
We conclude that the small amount of heterogeneous research, from 50years to date, suggests little discernable difference in
sex hormone levels between lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women excepting possibly higher testosterone. A large-scale
primary study would be required before placing any certainty in the findings or their implications.
Keywords Lesbian· Bisexual women· Sex hormones· Systematic review· Meta-analysis
Introduction
Health research in sexual minority women has shown that they
differ from heterosexual women in prevalence of several physi-
cal conditions (Meads, Martin, Grierson, & Varney, 2018; Rob-
inson, Galloway, Bewley, & Meads, 2017). For example, a sys-
tematic review showed higher rates of chronic pelvic pain and
cervical cancer, and lower rates of uterine cancer in lesbians
and bisexual women compared to heterosexual women, but no
significant difference in rates of polycystic ovarian syndrome,
endometriosis, and fibroids (Robinson etal., 2017). Another
systematic review demonstrated higher rates of asthma but not
cardiovascular disease, despite higher cardiovascular disease
risk profiles in lesbians and bisexual women compared to het-
erosexual women (Meads etal., 2018). It is currently unclear
whether there are higher rates of breast cancer incidence or
not, due to lack of good quality evidence (Meads & Moore,
2013). One study from the US has shown a higher mortal-
ity rate from breast cancer (Cochran & Mays, 2012), but it is
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1050 8-020-01717 -8) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Catherine Meads
catherine.meads@anglia.ac.uk
Alexandra Harris
lexie_harris@icloud.com
Susan Bewley
susan.bewley@kcl.ac.uk
1 Division ofWomen’s Health, Women’s Health Academic
Centre, Kings College London andKing’s Health Partners,
10th Floor North Wing, St Thomas’ Hospital Campus,
LondonSE17EH, UK
2 Faculty ofHealth, Education, Medicine andSocial Care,
Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, CambridgeCB11PT,
UK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A 11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
uncertain whether this is due to higher incidence, poorer access
to treatment, or other factors such as avoidance of screening
and over-diagnosis of low-grade lesions. Emerging evidence of
these different illness rates is somewhat puzzling if there were
indeed no physiological differences between sexual minority
women and heterosexual women. One explanation may lie in
different sex hormone levels.
Female sexual orientation has been investigated for dec-
ades (Balthazart, 2011; James, 2005; Meyer-Bahlburg, 1979;
O’Hanlan, Gordon, & Sullivan, 2018), with no firm conclu-
sions drawn about why women may become heterosexual,
bisexual or lesbian, though there has been a suggestion that
prenatal testosterone levels may influence life-long sexual
orientation (Balthazart, 2011). Potential correlations between
sex hormones and sexual orientation have been approached in
three main ways. There has been investigation of differences
in brain sexual differentiation that may lead to lasting differ-
ences in hormonal regulation (Downey, Ehrhardt, Schiffman,
Dyrenfurth, & Becker, 1987). A second route has been by
investigating organizational effects of any alteration of the
prenatal hormone environment in heterosexual and homo-
sexual people (Balthazart, 2011), for example, by looking at
second and fourth finger ratios (2D:4D ratios). Thirdly, and
of relevance to this project, there has been investigation of
activational effects of sex hormones from measurement of
their levels in post-pubertal homosexual people (Downey
etal., 1987).
Some reviews state that prenatal sex hormones are caus-
ally associated with sexual orientation of “butch” lesbians
(James, 2005; O’Hanlan etal. 2018), but this seems to be an
extrapolation from findings from research about women with
congenital adrenal hyperplasia (Stout, Litvak, Robbins, &
Sandberg, 2010). A number of researchers have investigated
various markers that may be associated with the prenatal
hormonal milieu and sexual orientation, such as handedness
(Lalumière, Blanchard, & Zucker, 2000) or second and fourth
finger ratios (2D:4D ratios) (Swift-Gallant, Johnson, Di Rita,
& Breedlove, 2020), among various other parameters. A more
recent extensive review of sexual orientation controversies
discusses differences in genetic and hormonal pathways and
whether either may have a part to play in causation of sexual
orientation (Bailey etal., 2016). While the role of hormones
in mammalian (including human) sexual differentiation is
clear, its role in sexual orientation is less clear.
Historically, much of the research into the biological basis
of sexual orientation has also failed to consider the place of
bisexual women. Studies have tended to either consider bisexu-
ality as a subset of homosexuality or disregard it entirely. There-
fore, in research studies, bisexual women could fall into either
homosexual or heterosexual groups depending on how they
were perceived by the researcher (Van Wyk & Geist, 1995).
There have been several reviews of sex hormone levels and
female sexuality in adulthood, but no systematic reviews. An
early review by Meyer-Bahlburg (1979) concluded that the
majority of female homosexuals have normal sex hormone
levels after puberty but a third have elevated androgen levels.
It is unclear as to how it was discerned that “a third of the
subjects studied had elevated androgen levels” as many of
the included papers were on transsexuals not lesbians and
the normal levels and cut-off used were not clear. Meyer-
Bahlburg also stated that variation in adult androgen levels
did not affect sexual orientation. Subsequent reviews focused
more on issues of trying to extrapolate results from mammals
to humans (Birke, 1981) or discussed potential confounding
effects of environmental stress (Banks & Gartrell, 1995).
If there is a difference in hormone levels between lesbian,
bisexual, and heterosexual women, it is unclear which hor-
mones would be involved, if there is a hormonal “threshold”
which must be met, and if it applies to all (Balthazart, 2011).
There are two primary sources of sex steroids: ovaries and
adrenal glands and the role of each may vary. It may also
be that any differences in hormones found are incidental,
secondary, or confounding, rather than causative, or affect
subgroups of sexual minority women only, such as those who
look or pass as more “masculine.”
It could also be that lesbian practices (or other factors)
might lead to changes in sex hormone levels. Similarly, higher
levels of chronic stress in society might lead to lower average
hormone levels, including for sex hormones such as luteinizing
hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), prolactin,
progesterone and testosterone, and higher levels of estrogen.
Most research in this area is on non-human animals.
This systematic review evaluates all published human
research on sex hormone levels in sexual minority women
compared to heterosexual women.
Method
This systematic review was conducted according to a pro-
spective protocol which was lodged with PROSPERO
(CRD42017072436) in September 2017.
Inclusion Criteria
Studies were eligible using the following inclusion criteria:
(1) Population: sexual minority women self-described as; les-
bian or bisexual, women who described themselves as having
sex with women (WSW), or having sex with women and men
(WSWM); or women co-habiting or married to women, and
who were identified as women at birth, and are not taking
exogenous sex hormones. (2) Exposure: any sex hormones
as reported in included papers, including (but not limited to)
androstenedione, estradiol, luteinizing hormone, pregnanediol,
progesterone, and testosterone; (3) Comparator: heterosexual
women or women self-describing as only having sex with men
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
or married to men; and who were identified as women at birth,
and are not taking exogenous hormones. (4) Study design:
any comparative studies including randomized controlled tri-
als, experimental studies, cohort studies, case–control stud-
ies, cross-sectional analyses, or secondary studies with data
of interest. Studies had to contain primary data and be peer-
reviewed. Only studies published between 1969 and 2019 were
eligible. There were no restrictions on setting or language.
Studies were excluded if: the sexual orientation and/or behav-
ior of women were not clear; there was no comparison with
heterosexual women; there were no outcomes of interest; or
if they were opinions, editorials, conference abstracts, or case
reports. Although not specified in the protocol, studies would
have been excluded if all participants were taking exogenous
hormones (e.g., transgender women who were born male and
were taking estrogen supplements).
Search Strategy, Study Selection, andData
Extraction
Searches were conducted by one reviewer (AH) and checked
by another (CM). Search terms and appropriate synonyms
(as MeSH terms and text words) were developed based on
population and exposures. Six databases (platforms) were
searched—British Nursing Index (Ovid), Cochrane Central
(Cochrane Library), Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid),
PsycInfo (Ovid), and Science Citation Index (Web of Sci-
ence). The same search terms were used for each database
but adapted where necessary. A full table of search terms can
be found in Online Supplement Appendix1. Searches were
conducted up to June 2018, and redone using the same search
terms and databases in May 2019. There were no language
restrictions. All titles found by the above search were assessed
for inclusion and abstracts read. Reference lists of relevant
reviews and accepted studies were also hand-searched to
identify any relevant papers not found by database search-
ing. We also checked studies on lesbian health used in other
projects because titles and abstracts may not have mentioned
the measurement of relevant sex hormones. If any titles and
abstracts had relevant information or there was uncertainty,
the full study was read and either accepted for the systematic
review or rejected based on the above inclusion and exclusion
criteria. Full-text assessment to determine inclusion in the
systematic review was carried out by both reviewers (AH,
CM). Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. A
standard form was devised prior to data extraction and qual-
ity scoring, based on the content of the papers and the aims
of the review. Data were extracted by one reviewer (AH) and
checked by another (CM). No authors were contacted about
data discrepancies.
Quality Assessments
Studies were appraised for selection, performance, attrition,
and detection biases (CM), and reported in the categories of
risk of bias, study design issues, and whether the study would
be representative of the general population. There is no single
validated checklist that would be appropriate for all of the
studies due to the diverse study designs so a formal quality
assessment tool could not be used.
Data Analysis
Results for plasma, saliva, and urinary analyses were tabu-
lated separately by the different hormones measured. Results
for women with medical conditions were assessed separately
to those without conditions. Meta-analysis was conducted,
using RevMan version 5.3, on hormone levels where five or
more studies reported results in a similar way. Where mul-
tiple sexual minority subgroups were present, the same het-
erosexual women comparator was used. Heterogeneity was
assessed using the I2 test, using established thresholds. Sub-
group analysis was performed where relevant, according to
sample type (blood, saliva, urine), and presence or absence of
contraceptive pill use, inclusion of postmenopausal women,
and sample taken in the post-luteal phase.
Results
From 1236 citations, 104 abstracts were selected, of which
24 full papers were available and were read. Fourteen stud-
ies were included in the narrative synthesis and nine in the
meta-analyses. See Online Supplement Fig.1 (PRISMA
flowchart) and Online Supplement Table1 (excluded stud-
ies with reasons).
Study Characteristics
The 14 studies were published between 1970 and 2016, and
are detailed in Table1. Study designs used were case–control
(n = 6), cross sectional (n = 6) and cohort (n = 2), see Online
Supplement Table2 (quality assessment of included studies).
Studies were all published in English and originated from:
USA (n = 6), UK (n = 5), Taiwan (n = 1), Canada (n = 1) and
the Netherlands (n = 1). Funding sources were wide ranging,
although four had no details on study funding. Recruitment
methods varied with most studies occurring outside of the
healthcare environment (n = 12), but one was performed in
a gynecology outpatient clinic (Agrawal etal., 2004) and
one in two fertility clinics (Chen etal., 2014). Participants
were recruited by a variety of methods, including advertising,
word of mouth, or consecutive patients; and in some studies a
combination was used. Two early studies gave no recruitment
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
2 11
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Table 1 Characteristics of Included Studies
References Population recruitment Determination of
sexual orientation
Comparator recruit-
ment
Hormones measured
method (reference
ranges)
Age range (moderators
controlled for)
Conditions related
to hormones levels
measured
Funding
Agrawal (2004)
UK
Lesbian women
n = 254
Consecutive recruit-
ing of women who
attended The London
Women’s Clinic and
Hallam Medical
Centre for ovulation
induction between
November 2001 and
January 2003
Self-identification
of orientation and
history of sexual
behavior discussed in
interviews,
Heterosexual women
n = 364
Recruitment same as
lesbian women
Plasma
Androstenedione
DHEAS
FSH
LH
Estradiol
Testosterone
Age range:
20–45years old
(mean 35.4)
(Timing of veni-
puncture on early
follicular phase,
i.e., days 2–3 of
menstrual cycle.
No participants had
previous exposure
to androgens or
androgen elevating
substances or used
hormonal therapy in
the last year)
Acne
BMI
Hirsutism
Oligo-/amenor-rhea
Ovarian volume
PCOS
Polycystic ovaries
No information
Chen (2014)
Taiwan
Lesbians with PCOS
n = 8
Recruited by medical
history questionnaire
at Gynecology Out-
patients Department
of Taipei Medical
University Hospital
Self-reporting and
description of sexual
history over past
2years on question-
naires
Heterosexual women
with PCOS n = 89
Recruitment same as
for lesbian women
Plasma Fasting: Andros-
tenedione
FAI
FSH
LH
LH/FSH ratio
Estradiol
Total testosterone
(Hyperandrogenism:
tT elevated and A
(> 2.4ng/mL))
Age range:
20–35years old
(Timing regarding
menstrual cycle
not specified). (No
participants were
taking OCP or expe-
riencing menopausal
symptoms at time of
venipuncture, or had
ever been diagnosed
with Cushing’s
syndrome, androgen-
secreting tumors, or
congenital adrenal
hyperplasia)
Acne
BMI
Hirsutism
Hyperandrogenism
Oligomen-norrhoea
PCOS
Joint grant from Taipei
Medical University
and Taipei Medical
University Hospital
and also by the Min-
istry of Science and
Technology, Executive
Yuan and Taipei Vet-
erans General Hospital
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Table 1 (continued)
References Population recruitment Determination of
sexual orientation
Comparator recruit-
ment
Hormones measured
method (reference
ranges)
Age range (moderators
controlled for)
Conditions related
to hormones levels
measured
Funding
Dancey (1990)
UK
Lesbians (n = 30) sepa-
rated into 3 catego-
ries: Primary lesbians
(n = 10), intermediate
lesbians
(n = 10), secondary
lesbians (n = 10)#
Recruitment by
response to advertise-
ments: Letters left
in women’s clubs,
pubs, and bookshops.
Adverts in women’s
magazines. Women
who responded
were given letters to
give to their female
friends
Self-definition as les-
bian/heterosexual.
Primary emotional/
sexual attractions
fulfilled by women
(lesbians) or men
(heterosexuals).
Corroborated by score
on SOM question-
naire
Heterosexual women
n = 10
Recruitment same as
for lesbians
Plasma
Androstenedione
Estradiol
Progesterone
Testosterone Testoster-
one/progesterone ratio
(Luteal phase
testosterone: 0.5–
2.5nmol/L)
Age range: 21–41
(mean 28.4 ± 4.96)
(Timing of venipunc-
ture on luteal phase,
i.e., days 4–9 after
ovulation). No par-
ticipants were taking
hormonal prepara-
tions)
Grant from the Central
Research Fund Com-
mittee, University of
London
Diamond and
Wallen (2011)
USA
Lesbian women
n = 5
Bisexual women
n = 7
Part of larger longitudi-
nal study to study
sexual identity
development. Initial
sampling at lesbian,
gay, and bisexual
community events,
youth groups, and
classes on gender
and sexuality issues
taught at local col-
leges and universities
Self-reporting in
interviews and online
diary throughout
longitudinal study
Non-lesbian and non-
bisexual women who
either identified as
heterosexual or did
not claim to have
a sexual identity.
These women had
previously identified
as lesbian or bisexual
at the start of the
longitudinal study.
n = 8
Recruiting the same
as for lesbian and
bisexual women
Salivary estradiol Mean age = 30years.
(Timing of sample col-
lection started 9days
after first day of
menstrual period and
consistent time of
day. No participants
were pregnant, breast
feeding, or taking
OCP at the time of
sample collection)
Grant from National
Institutes of Child
Health and Human
Development. Univer-
sity of Utah Research
Committee grant
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Table 1 (continued)
References Population recruitment Determination of
sexual orientation
Comparator recruit-
ment
Hormones measured
method (reference
ranges)
Age range (moderators
controlled for)
Conditions related
to hormones levels
measured
Funding
Downey (1987)
USA
Homosexual women
n = 7
Recruitment by adver-
tisement within a uni-
versity community
Kinsey scale score
based on partner
preference of sexual
fantasies and behav-
ior during previous
12months
Heterosexual women
n = 7
recruitment same
as for homosexual
women
Plasma
androstenedione
testosterone
Age range: 19–29
(Timing of venipunc-
ture on days 1–3
of menstrual cycle
and between 8 and
9am on each day.
Matching of homo-
sexual and hetero-
sexual participants
according to: age,
height, weight, level
of education, and
whether or not they
had a live in partner.
No participants had
irregular menstrual
cycles, had used
OCP in the previous
year, or been exposed
to diethylstilbestrol
prenatally)
BRSG grant of the
Research Foundation
for Mental Hygiene;
USPHS NIMH
Research Scientist
Development Award;
Research Center
Grants
Gartrell (1977)
USA
Homosexual women
n = 21
Recruitment: referred
by local “homophile
organizations”
Sexual behavior
included only
same-sex partners
(homosexuals) or
opposite sex partners
(heterosexuals) for
the preceding year
Heterosexual women
n = 19
No details of recruit-
ment
Plasma
testosterone
Age range homosexual
women: 21–35;
heterosexual women:
21–33.
(Timing of venipunc-
ture on days 1–3 of
menstrual cycle and
at 8am each day. No
participants were
taking OCP or had
menstrual irregulari-
ties)
No details
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Table 1 (continued)
References Population recruitment Determination of
sexual orientation
Comparator recruit-
ment
Hormones measured
method (reference
ranges)
Age range (moderators
controlled for)
Conditions related
to hormones levels
measured
Funding
Gladue (1991)
USA
Lesbians
n = 16
Recruited using
newspaper ads, post-
ers, referrals from
friends and previous
volunteers
Categorized by Kinsey
scale using informa-
tion from question-
naires and interview
data.
Only included if exclu-
sive lifelong (since
puberty) homosexual
or heterosexual
history
Heterosexual women
(n = 16)
Recruitment same as
lesbians women
Plasma
Estradiol
Testosterone (free and
total)
(Reference range not
given but states results
are in normal limits)
Age range: lesbians
21–32; heterosexual
women: 27–21
(Timing of venipunc-
ture on day 6 of
menstrual cycle and
between 1–4pm on
1day. No partici-
pants used OCP or
had known endocrine
abnormalities)
Harry Frank Guggen-
heim Foundation;
National Science
Foundation Experi-
mental Program to
Stimulate Competitive
Research; Achieving
Science Excellence
in North Dakota
Project, National
Science Foundation
Research Experiences
for Under-graduates
Program
Gooren (1986)
Netherlands
Homosexual women
n = 6
No details of recruit-
ment
Self-reporting of
orientation.
Lesbians had a
life-long history of
exclusive or near
exclusive homosex-
ual orientation
Heterosexual women
(n = 6)
No details of recruit-
ment
Plasma
LH, Estradiol
Testosterone
Age range: homosex-
ual women: 24–32;
heterosexual women:
22–27.
(Timing of venipunc-
ture on day 3–5 of
menstrual cycle
between 8.30 and
10am. No partici-
pants had used hor-
monal preparations
in 15months before
the study began)
No details
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Table 1 (continued)
References Population recruitment Determination of
sexual orientation
Comparator recruit-
ment
Hormones measured
method (reference
ranges)
Age range (moderators
controlled for)
Conditions related
to hormones levels
measured
Funding
Griffiths (1974)
UK
Lesbian women:
n = 36
Recruited through les-
bian organizations
Self-identification as
lesbian and member
of lesbian organiza-
tion
“Normal” subjects
from a previous
study for estradiol,
estriol and estrone4
n = not given
Urinary 17-oxosteroids
Epitestosterone Estra-
diol, Estriol Estrone
Prenanediol Pregnan-
etriol Testosterone
(Reference ranges:
pregnanediol: 6.2–15.6
(luteal) pregnanetriol:
0.3–8.9 17-Oxos-
teroids: 17.4–55.9
(µmol/24)5 epites-
tosterone: 6.9–61.8
testosterone: 3.5-41.3
(nmol/24h)6)
Lesbians age range:
22–55
(Comparator popula-
tion of an “appro-
priate age group”
Timing of sam-
pling in relation to
menstrual cycle was
noted for lesbian
subjects. Comparator
population samples
taken at “appropriate
stage” of menstrual
cycle. Use of OCP
was noted and taken
into account when
reporting results)
Endowment fund of St.
Thomas Hospital
Juster (2016)
Canada
Lesbian women
n = 8
Bisexual women
n = 13
Recruited as part of
a broader research
program. Separate
advertisements
according to sexual
orientation
Self-identification
of orientation by
responding to one of
three separate adverts
asking for hetero-
sexual, bisexual or
lesbian participants
and in telephone con-
sultation.
Corroborated using
Klein Sexual Orien-
tation Scale
Heterosexual women
n = 20
Recruitment the same
as for lesbian and
bisexual women
Salivary fasting estradiol
Progesterone Testos-
terone (Saliva)
Plasma fasting DHEAS
(DHEAS range:
1.2–10.4µmol/l)
Age range: 18–45
(Timing of sample
collection between
12 noon and 7pm
each day, phase of
menstrual cycle not
stated. Use of oral
contraceptive use and
phase of menstrual
cycle was considered
in analysis)
Blood pressure
BMI
Cholesterol level
Insulin level
Triglyceride level
Canadian Institutes of
Health Research.
RP Juster Doctoral
Scholarship from The
Institute of Aging of
Canadian Institutes of
Health Research
Loraine (1970)
UK
Lesbians
n = 4
No information on
recruitment
Self-reporting of ori-
entation and sexual
behavior
Heterosexual women
n = not given
Members of laboratory
staff who did not
admit to homosexual
inclinations
Urinary Epitestosterone
FSH, LH
Estradiol
Estriol, Estrone
Pregnanediol
Testosterone
Lesbians age range:
20–23 (age not given
for controls).
(Samples taken
throughout menstrual
cycle)
No information
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Table 1 (continued)
References Population recruitment Determination of
sexual orientation
Comparator recruit-
ment
Hormones measured
method (reference
ranges)
Age range (moderators
controlled for)
Conditions related
to hormones levels
measured
Funding
Neave (1999)
UK
Lesbian women
n = 14
Recruited through
homophile organiza-
tions and friendship
networks
Self-reporting and
score on question-
naire derived from
sell scale of sexual
orientation
Heterosexual women
n = 14
Recruited from North-
umbria University
student population
and in the com-
munity matched to
lesbian women in
terms of education
level and age
Salivary Testosterone Age range: Lesbi-
ans: 19–43 (mean
26); Heterosexual
women: 20–43
(mean 31),
(Timing of sample col-
lection according to
menstrual cycle and
consistent time of
day. No participants
were taking hormone
influencing drugs
(including OCP), had
abnormal menstrual
cycles, or had medi-
cal conditions affect-
ing hormone level)
University of Northum-
bria Small Research
Grants Scheme
Singh (1999)
USA
Lesbian women
(n = 33) separated
into “butch” (n = 17)
and “femme” (n = 16)
categories according
to score on personal
history questionnaire.
Recruited by “Snow-
ball”/networking
technique to find
friends/acquaintances
of researchers who
then recruited more
participants by word
of mouth
Self-identification as
lesbian or hetero-
sexual
Heterosexual women
n = 11
Same as for lesbian
women
Salivary Fasting:
Testosterone
Age range: 25–45
(Timing of sample
collection at 7–9am
each day, phase of
menstrual cycle not
stated. No par-
ticipants were taking
OCP or had known
ovarian problem)
BMI
Age at menarche
National Science Foun-
dation Grant
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Table 1 (continued)
References Population recruitment Determination of
sexual orientation
Comparator recruit-
ment
Hormones measured
method (reference
ranges)
Age range (moderators
controlled for)
Conditions related
to hormones levels
measured
Funding
Smith (2011)
USA
Lesbian women
(n = 114)
Recruitment using
participants of the
ESTHER Project
who agreed to be
contacted about
further studies.
Recruited to original
study by local
advertisement and
community events
Self-identified as
non-heterosexual
and reported only
or primarily having
emotional, physi-
cal, and romantic
attraction toward
women within the
past 5years or were
in relationships with
only or primarily
women within the
past 5years
Heterosexual women
(n = 97)
Self-identified as
heterosexual/straight
and only had male
partners since the
age of 18
Plasma Fasting:
Androstenedione
Testosterone
(Biochemical hyper-
androgensism:
tT  3.4ng/mL and
A > 2.4ng/mL)
Age range: 35–45
(Venipuncture phase
of menstrual cycle
not stated. No
participants were
using OCP at time
of venipuncture, dis-
played menopausal
symptoms, or had a
previous diagnosis of
Cushing’s syndrome,
androgen-secreting
tumors, congenital
adrenal hyperplasia)
Acne
BMI
Hirsutism
Infertility
PCOS
Oligo-menorrhea
ESTHER Project
funded by National
Lung, Blood and
Heart Association.
PCOS study funded
by ESTHER Project,
Lambda Founda-
tion and Lesbian
Health Fund (Gay
and Lesbian Medical
Association)
Key: #Primary lesbians: Never had heterosexual experiences or interest, scored less than 20 on the heterosexual component of SOM. Intermediate lesbians: Prior heterosexual experience or
interest and scored less than 20 on the heterosexual part of the SOM. Secondary Lesbians: Prior heterosexual experience or interest and scored more than 20 on the heterosexual part of the SOM
(Dancey etal. 1990)
Hormones: A: androstenedione; DHEAS: dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate; E2: estradiol; FAI: free androgen index (testosterone/sex hormone-binding globulin x100); FSH: follicle-stimulating
hormone; L2: luteinizing hormone; P: progesterone; T: testosterone; fT: free testosterone, tT: total testosterone
Abbreviations: ESTHER—BMI—body mass index, BRSG—Biomedical Research support Grant, Epidemiologic Study of Health Risk. Nmol—nanomoles, OCP—oral contraceptive pill,
PCO—polycystic ovaries, PCOS—polycystic ovary syndrome, SOM—sexual orientation method, µmol—micromoles, USPHS NIMH—United States Public Health Service National Institute
for Mental Health
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
details (Gooren, 1986; Loraine, Ismail, Adamopoulos, &
Dove, 1970). The number of sexual minority women included
in the primary studies ranged from 4 (Loraine etal., 1970)
to 254 (Agrawal etal., 2004). Participants were all within
adult reproductive age range (15–45) except one early study,
which included participants up to 55years old (Griffiths etal.,
1974), without clarification of numbers related to menopausal
status. Sexual minority status was determined by self-report-
ing of: self-identified orientation, history of sexual behavior,
and/or feelings of sexual attraction. Five studies also used a
numerical scale of sexual orientation or sexual preference
(Dancey, 1990; Downey etal., 1987; Gladue, 1991; Juster
etal., 2016; Neave, Menaged, & Weightman, 1999). Six stud-
ies specified a length of time participants must have identified
as lesbian or bisexual (Chen etal., 2014; Downey etal., 1987;
Gartrell, Loriaux, & Chase, 1977; Gladue, 1991; Gooren,
1986; Smith etal., 2011. The minimum time requirement
given was 12months (Downey etal., 1987; Gartrell etal.
1977) and the maximum was exclusive life-long orientation
(Gladue, 1991; Gooren, 1986). In one study, lesbians were
divided into subgroups according to sexual history (primary,
intermediate, and secondary lesbians) (Dancey, 1990) and
in one study (Singh, Vidaurri, Zambarano, & Dabbs, 1999)
the sexual minority women participants were divided into
“butch” and “femme.” Only two of the 14 studies included
bisexual women (Diamond & Wallen, 2011; Juster etal.,
2016), with one grouping them with lesbian women (Juster
etal., 2016) and the other reporting results for bisexual
women separately (Diamond & Wallen, 2011). Heterosexual
women were the comparator group in 12 studies, one study
used a comparator population of women who did not identify
as lesbian or bisexual (Diamond & Wallen, 2011), and one
study used reference ranges from textbooks and results from
a previous study (Griffiths etal., 1974).
In one study, self-reported information and blood test
results were examined by a reproductive endocrinologist
(Griffiths etal., 1974). Hormones were measured in plasma
(n = 9), saliva (n = 4), and urine (n = 2), one study reported
both plasma and salivary hormone results (Juster etal., 2016).
Hormones measured included 17-oxosteroids (n = 1), andros-
tenedione (n = 5), DHEAS (n = 2), epitestosterone (n = 2),
FSH (n = 2), LH (n = 3), estriol (n = 2), estrone (n = 2), estra-
diol (n = 10), pregnanediol (n = 2), pregnanetriol (n = 1), pro-
gesterone (n = 4), prolactin (n = 2), and testosterone (n = 15).
There were 15 results for testosterone because one paper
reported results separately for “butch” and “femme” women
(Singh etal., 1999). Timing of hormone sampling was con-
trolled for in some studies by time of day (n = 8) (Diamond
& Wallen, 2011; Downey etal., 1987; Gartrell etal. 1977;
Gladue, 1991; Juster etal., 2016; Loraine etal., 1970; Neave,
Menaged, & Weightman, 1999; Singh etal., 1999) and by
point in menstrual cycle (n = 9) (Agrawal etal., 2004; Dancey,
1990; Diamond & Wallen, 2011; Downey etal., 1987; Gartrell
etal. 1977; Gladue, 1991; Gooren, 1986; Griffiths etal., 1974;
Neave, Menaged, & Weightman, 1999). Some studies noted a
medical history of menstrual/endocrine abnormalities (n = 7)
(Chen etal. 2014; Downey etal., 1987; Gartrell etal. 1977;
Gladue, 1991; Neave, Menaged, & Weightman, 1999; Singh
etal., 1999; Smith etal., 2011). Current use of hormonal prep-
arations (e.g., contraceptive pill) was specifically excluded
for participants in all studies except one (Juster etal., 2016)
and not mentioned in two early studies (Griffiths etal., 1974;
Loraine etal., 1970). Hormone levels in polycystic ovarian
syndrome (PCOS) patients were measured in three studies
(Agrawal etal., 2004; Chen etal., 2014; Smith etal. 2011). All
of the participants in Chen etal., (2014) had PCOS but fewer
than 10% of the participants in Smith etal. (2011) had PCOS
(13/211). The study by Agrawal etal., (2004) gave hormone
levels for women with normal ovaries separately from those
with PCO and PCOS, but the results were not reported sepa-
rately in Smith etal., (2011). Five studies provided reference
ranges for one or more hormone (Chen etal., 2014; Dancey,
1990; Griffiths etal., 1974; Juster etal., 2016; Smith etal.,
2011). Numerical results are presented separately for plasma
(n = 9) (see Online Supplement Table3), saliva (n = 4) (see
Online Supplement Table4), and urine hormones (n = 2) (see
Online Supplement Table5).
Findings inHealthy Women
Direction of difference in hormone levels in sexual minor-
ity women compared to heterosexual women without known
ovarian problems, measured in more than one study are shown
in Table2. The two early studies measuring estrone (Griffiths
etal., 1974; Loraine etal., 1970) showed significant reductions
in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women.
There were mixed results in epitestosterone (n = 2), DHEAS
(n = 2), LH (n = 3), estriol (n = 2), and progesterone (n = 4), and
no significant difference in levels between sexual minority and
heterosexual women in androstenedione (n = 5), FSH (n = 2),
and pregnanediol (n = 2) (see Table2). There were also no dif-
ferences seen in the single studies that measured 17-oxosteroids
(Griffiths etal., 1974), pregnanetriol (Griffiths etal., 1974), and
prolactin (Agrawal etal., 2004) in women without known ovar-
ian problems. The one study measuring testosterone in “butch”
and “femme” lesbians (Singh etal., 1999) showed a significant
increase for the “butch” lesbians compared to “femme” lesbians
and compared to heterosexual women, but no significant dif-
ference between “femme” lesbians and heterosexual women
(of any appearance).
Exploratory meta-analyses in testosterone and estradiol
in women without known ovarian problems were conducted.
For testosterone, there was a significant increase in sexual
minority women overall (n = 9, SMD = + 0.90; 95% CI +0.22
to +1.57, I2 = 84%) (see Fig.1) compared to heterosexual
AQ1
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
3 11
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
women, but no significant increase in the plasma testoster-
one subgroup results. For estradiol, there was no significant
difference overall [n = 7, SMD = − 0.03 (95% CI − 0.24 to
+ 0.18, I2 = 0%)] or in any subgroup by sampling type (see
Fig.2).
Table 2 Hormone Levels, Showing Statistically Significantly Increased (r), Decreased (t), Same Levels (s), or Not Measured (…) in Sexual
Minority Women Compared to Heterosexual Women Without Known Ovarian Problems
References Andros-
tenedi-
one
DHEAS Epites-
toster-
one
Estriol Estrone Estradiol FSH LH Pregnanediol Progesterone Testosterone
Agrawal (2004) s s s s s
Dancey (1990)p s s s s
Dancey (1990)i s s s s
Dancey (1990)b s s s s
Diamond and Wallen (2011) s
Downey (1987)s s
Gartrell (1977) r
Gladue (1991) s s
Gooren (1986) ss s
Griffiths (1974) s s t s ss
Juster (2016) r s r r
Loraine (1970) r t t t s r s r
Neave (1999) s
Singh (1999) (“butch”) r
Singh (1999) (“femme”) s
Smith etal. (2011)s s
Fig. 1 Random effects subgroup meta-analysis of testosterone levels by sample method in lesbians and heterosexual women with no known
ovarian or endocrine problem
339
340
341
342
343
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Subgroup analysis of the testosterone meta-analysis remov-
ing the study using luteal sampling (Dancey, 1990) increased
the overall SMD to + 1.19 (95% CI + 0.47 to + 1.91). Subgroup
analysis removing the study explicitly including participants
using the contraceptive pill (Juster etal., 2016) decreased the
overall SMD to + 0.63 (95% CI + 0.08 to + 1.18). Adding in
results for bisexual women (Dancey, 1990) decreased the over-
all SMD slightly to + 0.82 (95% CI + 0.19 to + 1.45).
All of the subgroup analyses for the estrogen meta-analy-
sis made very little difference to the overall result. The only
study enrolling participants over the age of 50 (who may have
been menopausal) (Griffiths etal., 1974) did not contribute
to either meta-analysis.
Results inWomen withPolycystic Ovary Syndrome
Three studies included women with PCOS (Agrawal etal.,
2004; Chen etal., 2014; Smith etal. 2011). As Smith etal.
(2011) did not give results for sexual minority women with
PCOS separately to those without PCOS, and there were fewer
than 10% of women with PCOS, their results are given in the
section above. Agrawal etal. (2004) gave results separately for
women with PCOS and all participants in Chen etal. (2014)
had PCOS. For sexual minority women with PCOS, there
were statistically significantly lower levels of estradiol in one
study (Chen etal., 2014) but not in the other (Agrawal etal.,
2004), and higher levels of testosterone, androstenedione, and
free androgen index in one study (Agrawal etal., 2004), but
not in the other (Chen etal., 2014), compared to heterosexual
women. There were no significant differences found in lev-
els of DHEAS (Agrawal etal., 2004), FSH (Agrawal etal.,
2004; Chen etal., 2014), LH (Agrawal etal., 2004; Chen etal.,
2014), and prolactin (Agrawal etal., 2004).
Discussion
Main Findings
There has been disappointingly little research into sex hor-
mone levels in sexual minority women. Our findings suggest
little discernible difference in plasma hormone levels between
sexual minority and heterosexual women except for possibly
higher testosterone levels, and only when combining blood,
saliva and urine results across studies which were small with
considerable variation in methods of hormonal data collec-
tion. If there are higher rates of testosterone in sexual minority
women, the current evidence is not sufficient to determine
whether this is in a subset or not. Also, the testosterone levels
may be an incidental finding rather than causative of health
differences. There were inconsistent results in women with
PCOS.
Fig. 2 Random effects subgroup meta-analysis of estradiol levels by sample method in lesbians and heterosexual women with no known ovarian
or endocrine problem
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Strengths andLimitations
Strengths included protocol preregistration in the PROSPERO
database, careful presentation of numerical results, inclusion
of global data from a variety of sources, and a search for any
relevant studies from the last 50years. Methods of hormone
assays have changed over time but each study used the same
methods for all of their participant groups. Therefore, as we
looked for relative differences between groups within each
study and used standardized mean differences in the meta-
analyses, absolute differences in measurement methods across
studies will not impact on the results. However, we cannot
be certain that each of the studies measured hormones in the
same part of the menstrual cycle in each participant. Where
studies had relatively large samples, hopefully these differ-
ences would cancel each other, but in small sample sizes,
there may be consistent differences because of this. It would
be uncertain as to which direction these differences would
lie. Also, participants in most of the studies were not explic-
itly asked whether they had PCOS or even congenital adre-
nal hyperplasia (CAH), both of which can affect testosterone
levels. Participants in some studies were split into subgroups
of sexual minority status, such as primary, intermediate, or
secondary lesbians (for definitions see Online Supplement
Table2) (Dancey, 1990) or “butch” and “femme” (Singh etal.
1999), with little justification, and results presented sepa-
rately, thereby diluting the main effect of sexual minority vs
heterosexual women. Therefore, we cannot tell from the small
amount of studies so far whether the slightly higher testoster-
one levels found in the all-sample meta-analysis would apply
to all lesbians and bisexual women or to a subgroup. It is
uncertain as to how any subgroups would be defined.
Interpretation
There have been no recent systematic reviews of sex hormone
levels in sexual minority women. Other studies are consistent
with some of the findings, for example Pearcey, Docherty,
& Dabbs (1996) found that when measured in butch/femme
pairs, “butch” lesbians had higher testosterone levels than
their partners who rated themselves as more “femme,” which
is similar to the findings in one of our included studies (Singh
etal. 1999). However, when combined results for all “butch”
partners were compared to all “femme” partners, no sig-
nificant differences were seen, suggesting that the relative
rather than absolute difference is more important, or that the
sample size was too small to determine absolute differences
in testosterone levels. The heterogeneity of findings was of
particular importance in the testosterone findings, where there
was some statistically significant evidence of a relationship
between androgens and sexual orientation. However, the prob-
lem is that there are a number of endocrine conditions that
might affect levels of androgens (such as CAH, PCOS, and
oral contraceptive or menstrual regulation use), and thus it
would be crucial that these variables are controlled for, which
was not consistently the case. In the aforementioned study
by Singh etal. (1999) participants were not explicitly asked
whether they had PCOS or even CAH. They were not asked
whether they had congenital androgen insensitivity syndrome
(CAIS), a condition that effectively makes androgen action
impossible, regardless of androgen levels. Thus, the composi-
tion of the sample in relation to endocrine factors that would
affect androgen levels is unknown. Similarly, in Smith etal.
(2011), which did include women with PCOS, these results
were not presented separately as they made up only 10% of
the sample, thus confounding any relationship between tes-
tosterone and sexual minority status.
Implications forPolicymakers
If the tentative finding of higher levels of testosterone in
sexual minority women were confirmed, higher rates of
conditions associated with higher testosterone levels such
as PCOS might be expected to be observed, although a recent
systematic review has not demonstrated this (Robinson etal.,
2017). Therefore, any clinical implications remain currently
unclear. Also, finding a difference tells us nothing about the
direction of causality. Testosterone levels in the blood can
be raised indirectly by stress and there has been much work
around minority stress in sexual minorities (Meyer, 2003).
Thus, it is unclear if our tentative finding of higher testos-
terone levels is because of minority stress, another cause, or
merely an incidental finding. More clarity is required before
any implications for health in sexual minority women can
be discussed.
Implications forResearch
There has been very little research into sex hormone levels in
sexual minority women so far and most previous studies have
had small sample sizes. In the 40years since its publication,
research seems not to have progressed much further than
the Meyer-Bahlburg (1979) review. There also appears to be
very little information on variations of androgen and estrogen
receptor sensitivity. A large, well-conducted study is needed
to establish sex hormone levels in sexual minority women
compared to heterosexual women so that potential influences
on the health of sexual minority women can be estimated.
This could also measure variations of androgen and estrogen
receptor sensitivity. Using an online two group sample size
calculator, at 95% CI (alpha of 0.05), beta of 2 and power of
80%, and means and SDs taken from the testosterone Forest
plot (mean 17.4, SD 6.27 lesbian, mean 14.7 heterosexual
group), we estimate that a single study which could look at
all hormone profiles should have 170 participants, 85 in each
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
4 11
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
group, which is fewer than in the Forest plot, but much larger
than all of the included studies.
It may be possible to use cohort data, for example from the
Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)
study, to investigate links between sex hormone and receptor
sensitivity levels and sexual orientation. This large cohort
study enrolled participants before birth, recorded adolescents’
sexual orientation at age 15years, and collected blood sam-
ples at various ages, including at age 24. Regarding PCOS and
other rarer conditions, some questions can only be answered
by case–control studies or registry data, which would be
feasible if they recorded sexual orientation. An important
implication for future research is that sexual orientation,
sexual behavior, and cohabitation status should be routinely
recorded as part of data collection in research studies, along-
side medical records, to allow more large scale interpretation
of hormone levels, disease patterns, and potential confounders
including stress levels.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest little discernible difference in hormone
levels between sexual minority women and heterosexual
women except for possibly higher testosterone levels, but a
large-scale primary study would be needed to increase the
certainty of this finding or its refutation. The paucity of pri-
mary studies may relate to a lack of interest, lack of funding,
or stigmatization of the topic. Some included studies focused
on identity and some on behavior. However, while identity and
behavior are overlapping categories, they must be distinguished
in research by recording and presenting both.
Acknowledgements We thank Miss Melanie Davies for comments on
an earlier draft. We thank the anonymous peer reviewers and Editor on
Chief for their comments.
Funding The study arose from an initial project undertaken during a
part-funded B.Sc. at King’s College London (AH) but was otherwise
unfunded. The authors had no financial support for this work. There
were no financial relationships with any organizations that might have
an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and there
were no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influ-
enced the submitted work.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human
participants performed by any of the authors as it’s a systematic review.
References
Agrawal, R., Sharma, S., Bekir, J., Conway, G., Bailey, J., Balen, A.
H., & Prelevic, G. (2004). Prevalence of polycystic ovaries and
polycystic ovary syndrome in lesbian women compared with het-
erosexual women. Fertility and Sterility, 82(5), 1352–1357. https
://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertn stert .2004.04.041.
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E.,
& Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Sci-
ence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45–101.
https ://doi.org/10.1177/15291 00616 63761 6.
Balthazart, J. (2011). Minireview: Hormones and human sexual orienta-
tion. Endocrinology, 152(8), 2937–2947. https ://doi.org/10.1210/
en.2011-0277.
Banks, A., & Gartrell, N. K. (1995). Hormones and sexual orientation:
a questionable link. Journal of Homosexuality, 28(3–4), 247–268.
https ://doi.org/10.1300/J082v 28n03 _04.
Birke, L. I. (1981). Is homosexuality hormonally determined? Journal
of Homosexuality, 6(4), 35–49.
Chen, C. H., Wang, P. H., Hsieh, M. T., Tzeng, C. R., Wu, Y. H., Lee,
C. S., … Chang, H. Y. (2014). Sexual orientations of women with
polycystic ovary syndrome: clinical observation in Taiwan. Taiwan
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 53(4), 542–546. https ://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tjog.2014.09.002.
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2012). Risk of breast cancer mortal-
ity among women cohabiting with same sex partners: findings
from the National Health Interview Survey, 1997–2003. Jour-
nal of Womens Health, 21(5), 528–533. https ://doi.org/10.1089/
jwh.2011.3134.
Dancey, C. P. (1990). Sexual orientation in women: an investigation
of hormonal and personality variables. Biological Psychology,
30(3), 251–264.
Diamond, L. M., & Wallen, K. (2011). Sexual minority women’s sexual
motivation around the time of ovulation. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior, 40(2), 237–246. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1050 8-010-9631-2.
Downey, J., Ehrhardt, A. A., Schiffman, M., Dyrenfurth, I., & Becker,
J. (1987). Sex hormones in lesbian and heterosexual women. Hor-
mones and Behavior, 21(3), 347–357.
Gartrell, N. K., Loriaux, D. L., & Chase, T. N. (1977). Plasma testos-
terone in homosexual and heterosexual women. American Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, 134(10), 1117–1118. https ://doi.org/10.1176/
ajp.134.10.1117.
Gladue, B. A. (1991). Aggressive behavioral characteristics, hormones
and sexual orientation in men and women. Aggressive Behavior,
17, 313–326.
Gooren, L. (1986). The neuroendocrine response of luteinizing hormone
to estrogen administration in heterosexual, homosexual, and trans-
sexual subjects. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabo-
lism, 63(3), 583–588. https ://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-63-3-583.
Griffiths, P. D., Merry, J., Browning, M. C., Eisinger, A. J., Hunts-
man, R. G., Lord, E. J., & Whitehouse, R. H. (1974). Homosexual
women: an endocrine and psychological study. Journal of Endo-
crinology, 63(3), 549–556.
James, W. H. (2005). Biological and psychosocial determinants of male
and female human sexual orientation. Journal of Biosocial Sci-
ence, 37(5), 555–567. https ://doi.org/10.1017/S0021 93200 40070
59.
Juster, R. P., Almeida, D., Cardoso, C., Raymond, C., Johnson, P. J.,
Pfaus, J. G., & Lupien, S. J. (2016). Gonads and strife: sex hor-
mones vary according to sexual orientation for women and stress
indices for both sexes. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 72, 119–130.
https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyne uen.2016.06.011.
Lalumière, M. L., Blanchard, R., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Sexual ori-
entation and handedness in men and women: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 575–592.
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
5 11
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
Author Proof
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 16 MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Loraine, J. A., Ismail, A. A., Adamopoulos, D. A., & Dove, G. A.
(1970). Endocrine function in male and female homosexuals. Brit-
ish Medical Journal, 4(5732), 406–409.
Meads, C., Martin, A., Grierson, J., & Varney, J. (2018). Systematic
review and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascu-
lar and respiratory condition epidemiology in sexual minority
women. British Medical Journal Open, 8(4), e020776. https ://
doi.org/10.1136/bmjop en-2017-02077 6.
Meads, C., & Moore, D. (2013). Breast cancer in lesbians and
bisexual women: Systematic review of incidence, prevalence
and risk studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 1127. https ://doi.
org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1127.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in les-
bian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research
evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https ://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.
Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. (1979). Sex hormones and female homosexu-
ality: a critical examination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 8(2),
101–119.
Neave, N., Menaged, M., & Weightman, D. R. (1999). Sex differ-
ences in cognition: the role of testosterone and sexual orientation.
Brain and Cognition, 41(3), 245–262. https ://doi.org/10.1006/
brcg.1999.1125.
O’Hanlan, K. A., Gordon, J. C., & Sullivan, M. W. (2018). Biological
origins of sexual orientation and gender identity: Impact on health.
Gynecologic Oncology, 149(1), 33–42. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ygyno .2017.11.014.
Pearcey, S. M., Docherty, K. J., & Dabbs, J. M., Jr. (1996). Testoster-
one and sex role identification in lesbian couples. Physiology &
Behavior, 60(3), 1033–1035.
Robinson, K., Galloway, K. Y., Bewley, S., & Meads, C. (2017). Les-
bian and bisexual women’s gynaecological conditions: a systematic
review and exploratory meta-analysis. BJOG, 124(3), 381–392.
https ://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14414 .
Singh, D., Vidaurri, M., Zambarano, R. J., & Dabbs, J. M., Jr. (1999).
Lesbian erotic role identification: behavioral, morphological, and
hormonal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 76(6), 1035–1049.
Smith, H. A., Markovic, N., Matthews, A. K., Danielson, M. E., Kalro,
B. N., Youk, A. O., & Talbott, E. O. (2011). A comparison of
polycystic ovary syndrome and related factors between lesbian
and heterosexual women. Womens Health Issues, 21(3), 191–198.
https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2010.11.001.
Stout, S. A., Litvak, M., Robbins, N. M., & Sandberg, D. E. (2010).
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia: classification of studies employing
psychological endpoints. International Journal of Pediatric Endo-
crinology, 2010, 191520. https ://doi.org/10.1155/2010/19152 0.
Swift-Gallant, A., Johnson, B. A., Di Rita, V., & Breedlove, S. B.
(2020). Through a glass, darkly: Human digit ratios reflect prena-
tal androgens, imperfectly. Hormones and Behavior, 120, 104686.
Van Wyk, P. H., & Geist, C. S. (1995). Biology of bisexuality: Critique
and observations. Journal of Homosexuality, 28(3–4), 357–373.
https ://doi.org/10.1300/J082v 28n03 _11.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
AQ2
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
6 11
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
Author Proof
Journal : Large 10508 Article No : 1717 Pages : 1MS Code : 1717 Dispatch : 22-4-2020
Journal: 10508
Article: 1717
Author Query Form
Please ensure you fill out your response to the queries raised below and return this form along
with your corrections
Dear Author
During the process of typesetting your article, the following queries have arisen. Please check your typeset proof
carefully against the queries listed below and mark the necessary changes either directly on the proof/online grid or in the
Author’s response’ area provided below
Query Details Required Author’s Response
AQ1 Diamond (2010) has been changed to Diamond and Wallen (2011) so that this citation
matches the list.
AQ2 Please provide valid doi for the reference Swift-Gallant etal. (2020).
Author Proof
... This might explain the mixed results found in previous studies comparing testosterone concentrations between lesbian and heterosexual women. While some studies have found higher testosterone concentrations in lesbians compared to heterosexual women (Gartrell et al., 1977;Harris et al., 2020;Loraine et al., 1970Loraine et al., , 1971), others could not find differences in testosterone concentrations between lesbian and heterosexual women (Dancey, 1990;Downey et al., 1987;Griffiths et al., 1974;Neave et al., 1999;van Anders & Hampson, 2005). Thus, we acknowledge that sexual orientation is not a static or homogeneous trait and that ignoring the existing variability may lead to inconclusive results. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective Intrauterine exposure to testosterone (Tintrauterine) can permanently organize the brain. A putative marker of this endocrine exposure is the 2D:4D finger-digit ratio. In contrast to early prenatal androgen, testosterone concentrations in adulthood (Tadult) are purported to have transient activational effects. Lesbian women typically show lower 2D:4D ratios (indicative of greater Tintrauterine) and higher Tadult levels compared to heterosexual women. However, few studies, with mixed results, have assessed differences in Tadult and Tintrauterine between heterosexual, femme, and butch lesbians (respectively, feminized and masculinized styles). This study aimed to compare the 2D:4D ratio and Tadult levels in saliva between masculine, feminine lesbian, and heterosexual women. Results Tadult levels were higher in masculine compared to feminine lesbians and heterosexual women. However, there were no differences between the groups regarding the 2D:4D ratio, nor did it show a correlation between Tadult levels and the 2D:4D ratio. Conclusion Our study suggests the existence of biological differences at the activational level between masculine and feminine lesbians. These results do not exclude the possibility of prenatal influence on female homosexuality. We recommend further studies to address this question while circumventing the limitations of the present study.
... Because changes in hormone level disruptions are often reported among sexual and gender minorities relative to cis-gendered heterosexual study participants [90], this finding demonstrates one possible opportunity to learn about genetic effects on hormone receptor concentration and/or binding efficiency, and mental health among these communities. Though proposed by numerous small empirical studies, larger meta-analyses support the need for further investigation of hormone concentration differences across sex and gender minorities [91]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The internalizing spectrum encompasses a subset of psychopathologies characterized by emotional liability, anhedonia, anxiousness, distress, and fear, and includes, among others, diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In this review, we describe the vast body of work highlighting a role for sex and gender in the environment, symptom onset, genetic liability, and disorder progression and comorbidities of MDD, GAD, and PTSD. We also point the reader to different language used in diverse fields to describe sexual and gender minorities that may complicate the interpretation of emerging literature from the social sciences, psychiatric and psychological sciences, and genetics. Finally, we identify several gaps in knowledge that we hope serve as launch-points for expanding the scope of psychiatric studies beyond binarized sex-stratification. Despite being under-represented in genomics studies, placing emphasis on inclusion of sexual and gender diverse participants in these works will hopefully improve our understanding of disorder etiology using genetics as one tool to inform how biology (e.g., hormone concentration) and environmental variables (e.g., exposure to traumatic events) contribute to differences in symptom onset, pattern, and long-term trajectory.
... However, it has to be considered that a systematic review on sex hormone levels in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women concluded that data are too scarce to make definitive statements regarding differing hormone levels by sexual identity. 98 Across categories, we found a trend of bisexual women being more affected than lesbian women by some of the stress-related conditions (e.g. asthma, back pain, headache disorders). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Sexual minority individuals experience discrimination, leading to mental health disparities. Physical health disparities have not been examined to the same extent in systematic reviews so far. Objectives To provide a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analyses on the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority women (i.e. lesbian- and bisexual-identified women) compared to heterosexual-identified women. Design The study design is a systematic review with meta-analyses. Data Sources and Methods A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases was conducted on epidemiologic studies on physical health conditions, classified in the Global Burden of Disease project, published between 2000 and 2021. Meta-analyses pooling odds ratios were calculated. Results In total, 23,649 abstracts were screened and 44 studies were included in the systematic review. Meta-analyses were run for arthritis, asthma, back pain, cancer, chronic kidney diseases, diabetes, headache disorders, heart attacks, hepatitis, hypertension, and stroke. Most significant differences in prevalence by sexual identity were found for chronic respiratory conditions, especially asthma. Overall, sexual minority women were significantly 1.5–2 times more likely to have asthma than heterosexual women. Furthermore, evidence of higher prevalence in sexual minority compared to heterosexual women was found for back pain, headaches/migraines, hepatitis B/C, periodontitis, urinary tract infections, and acne. In contrast, bisexual women had lower cancer rates. Overall, sexual minority women had lower odds of heart attacks, diabetes, and hypertension than heterosexual women (in terms of diabetes and hypertension possibly due to non-consideration of pregnancy-related conditions). Conclusion We found evidence for physical health disparities by sexual identity. Since some of these findings rely on few comparisons only, this review emphasizes the need for routinely including sexual identity assessment in health research and clinical practice. Providing a more detailed picture of the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority women may ultimately contribute to reducing health disparities.
... No consistent differences in circulating sex hormones have been observed between androphilic and gynephilic males (Meyer-Bahlburg, 1984). A recent meta-analysis found higher testosterone levels in lesbians compared to heterosexual women, and no differences in several other steroid hormones, plus luteinizing hormone (Harris et al., 2020). Lesbians self-identifying as "butch" also had higher salivary testosterone than those identifying as "femme" in two samples (Pearcey et al., 1996;Singh et al., 1999). ...
Article
Full-text available
Sexual attraction to males or females is perhaps the largest behavioral sex difference across animal species. Experiments in laboratory mammals show that prenatal androgens mediate this sex difference, but ethical considerations preclude such experimentation in humans. Multiple lines of converging correlational evidence are therefore needed to demonstrate such mediation in humans. We review available data linking human sexual orientation to endocrine action, including research on endocrine disorders and biomarkers of early sex hormones. We also perform a meta-analysis across 13 studies comprising 56,804 individuals to investigate a possible link between non-heterosexuality and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), an endocrine condition associated with elevated androgens in females. We find converging evidence that prenatal gonadal hormones influence the development of human sexual orientation and orchestrate its sexual differentiation primarily by regulating patterns of gene expression in the developing brain. Evidence is particularly strong that androgens increase sexual attraction to females. In our meta-analysis, PCOS was more common in non-heterosexual females (r = 0.18, p < 0.001). Some evidence also indicates that estrogens increase sexual attraction to males. We discuss why data may be less clear regarding variation in sexual orientation among males, including the possible existence of subgroups characterized by distinct biological pathways that contribute to same-sex sexual orientation. Moving forward, we propose that multiple measures and/or markers be considered together to better characterize early hormonal action on human sexual orientation.
... Our finding of higher mean Sal-T in women with ever experience of same sex sex is illuminated by a recent systematic review, investigating whether lesbian and bisexual women may have different levels of sex hormones compared to heterosexual women. The review found tentative evidence of higher T among sexual minority women, though the heterogeneity of studies and problems with confounding made it hard to draw definitive conclusions (Harris et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Using data from the third British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3) we examined associations between salivary testosterone (Sal-T) and sexual function and behavior. Single morning saliva samples were self-collected from a subsample of participants aged 18-74 years and analyzed using mass spectrometry. 1,599 men and 2,123 women were included in the analysis (40.6% of those invited to provide a sample). We adjusted for confounders in a stepwise manner: in model 1 we adjusted for age only; model 2 for age, season and relationship status, and model 3 we added BMI and self-reported health. In the fully adjusted models, among men, Sal-T was positively associated with both partnered sex (vaginal sex and concurrent partners) and masturbation. Among women, Sal-T was positively associated with masturbation, the only association with partnered sex was with ever experience of same-sex sex. We found no clear association between Sal-T and sexual function. Our study contributes toward addressing the sparsity of data outside the laboratory on the differences between men and women in the relationship between T and sexual function and behavior. To our knowledge, this is the first population study, among men and women, using a mass spectrometry Sal-T assay to do so.
... Investigating the relative rates of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in trans men and trans women may help to provide further evidence for some of these factors. Lesbians may have higher testosterone levels [27], and it is unclear if this is associated with better or worse COVID-19 outcomes, including long COVID syndrome. ...
Article
Full-text available
COVID-19 infection rates and severity are worse in marginalised groups, although, for sexual and gender minorities, there are no data on infections, hospitalisations or deaths, but there may be worse rates. This study uses information from Understanding Society: The UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to derive COVID-19 symptoms and positive tests by sexual orientation. Data came from all seven UKHLS COVID-19 survey waves in 2020 and 2021, and sexual orientation in main UKHLS waves 3 and 9. Numbers ranged from 17,800 to 12,000. Covariates in the regression models were gender, age, highest educational qualification, ethnicity, diagnosed medical condition, and key worker status. Compared to heterosexual individuals, more sexual minorities experienced symptoms, and bisexual individuals reported a greater number of symptoms. Gays and lesbians were no more or less likely to have been tested, but a larger proportion of bisexual individuals were tested. Regression models showed that differences mostly disappeared when other characteristics were considered. A small sample size means that principal questions remain, so health inequalities have been largely unnoticed and therefore not addressed. Suitable action should be taken to minimise their future risks. Why sexual and gender minorities have been omitted needs to be explored, and action needs to be taken to ensure this does not happen again.
... In this Letter, I briefly respond to the scientific shortcomings of Barron's (2020) recent Commentary in which he discussed the evolution of same-sex sexual attraction and behavior as a response to my earlier Commentary (Luoto, 2020). Barron continued to question the evidentiary support for endocrinological hypotheses of same-sex sexual attraction, citing Harris, Bewley, and Meads (2020), but in doing so, he clearly misunderstood the distinction between organizational and activational effects of hormones. Barron therefore failed to criticize neurodevelopmental models of sexual orientation. ...
... The various versions of the endocrine hypothesis of homosexuality have persisted despite a lack of supporting evidence, while placing an awful lot of weight on rather scant evidence. Luoto refers to Harris, Bewley, and Meads (2020) as presenting evidence for "significant degrees of masculinization in nonheterosexual women" in endocrinology. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective: To systematically review all published and unpublished evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of UK sexual and gender minority (LGBT+; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, intersex and queer) people. Methods: Any relevant studies with or without comparator were included, with outcomes of: COVID-19 incidence, hospitalisation rates, illness severity, death rates, other health and well-being. Six databases (platforms) were searched-CINAHL Plus (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Cochrane Library), Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Scopus between 2019 and 2020 in December 2020, using synonyms for sexual and gender minorities and COVID-19 search terms. Data extraction and quality assessment (using the relevant Joanna Briggs checklist) were in duplicate with differences resolved through discussion. Results were tabulated and synthesis was through narrative description. Results: No published research was found on any outcomes. Eleven grey literature reports found to be of low quality were included, mostly conducted by small LGBT+ charities. Only four had heterosexual/cisgender comparators. Mental health and well-being, health behaviours, safety, social connectedness and access to routine healthcare all showed poorer or worse outcomes than comparators. Conclusions: Lack of research gives significant concern, given pre-existing health inequities. Social and structural factors may have contributed to poorer outcomes (mental health, well-being and access to healthcare). Paucity of evidence is driven by lack of routinely collected sexual orientation and gender identity data, possibly resulting from institutional homophobia/transphobia which needs to be addressed. Men are more at risk of serious illness from COVID-19 than women, so using data from trans women and men might have started to answer questions around whether higher rates were due to sex hormone or chromosomal effects. Routine data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity is required to examine the extent to which COVID-19 is widening pre-existing health inequalities. Prospero registration number: CRD42020224304.
Article
Full-text available
Objective Sexual minority women (SMW) experience higher chronic disease risk factors than heterosexual counterparts. However, it was unclear if these risks translate into higher physical condition rates. This systematic review evaluates cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension, respiratory disease and diabetes mellitus in SMW. Methods A protocol was registered with the Prospero database (CRD42016050299). Included were studies reporting mortality, incidence or prevalence of the above-listed conditions in SMW compared with heterosexual women. Databases (platforms) searched from 2010 to December 2016 were Medline (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Elsevier), PsycINFO (Ovid), Social Policy and Practice (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Science Citation Index (Web of Science), and CAB Abstracts (Ovid). Search terms included Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text words. Extensive additional searches were conducted in specialist academic journals and websites. Two reviewers checked study eligibility. One independently extracted data and assessed quality, checked by a second reviewer, with disagreements resolved through discussion. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted where more than four studies reported the same outcomes, with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, using adjusted ORs (AORs) and random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² test. Results Identified were 23 103 citations, 692 full texts screened and 16 studies included (in 18 papers). One reported mortality (from Denmark), none incidence and 15 prevalence (14 USA, 1 Australia). Same-sex cohabiting women had higher mortality rates compared with opposite-sex cohabiting women in CVD (HR=1.37 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.54)) and respiratory disease (HR=2.10 (95% CI 1.74 to 2.53)). AOR meta-analyses of seven studies showed higher asthma rates in lesbians (OR=1.44 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.64), I²=0%) and bisexual women (OR=1.64 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.89), I²=0%) but no differences for CVD (5 studies), hypertension (5 studies) or diabetes mellitus (7 studies). Conclusions These new health estimates require further confirmatory epidemiological studies, and investigation into potential environmental, hormonal, physiological, psychological or genetic causes. This would be supported by routine collection of sexual identity measures in population-level epidemiological surveys.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Little is known about the gynaecological health of lesbian and bisexual (LB) women. Objectives: To examine differences in incidence and/or prevalence of gynaecological conditions in LB compared with heterosexual women. Search strategy: The systematic review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO-CRD42015027091) and searches conducted in seven databases. Selection criteria: Comparative studies published 2000-2015, reporting any benign (non-infectious) and/or malignant gynaecological conditions with no language or setting restrictions. Data collection and analysis: Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses of condition prevalence rates were conducted where ≥3 studies reported results. Main results: From 567 records, 47 full papers were examined and 11 studies of mixed designs included. No studies directly addressing the question were found. Two chronic pelvic pain studies reported higher rates in bisexual compared with heterosexual women (38.5 versus 28.2% and 18.6 versus 6.4%). Meta-analyses showed no statistically significant differences in polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis and fibroids. There was a higher rate of cervical cancer in bisexual than heterosexual women [odds ratio (OR) = 1.94; 95% CI 1.46-2.59] but no difference overall (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.15-3.92). There was a lower rate of uterine cancer in lesbian than heterosexual women (OR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.11-0.73) and overall (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.97), but no difference in bisexual women (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.06-3.07). Conclusions: More bisexual women may experience chronic pelvic pain and cervical cancer than heterosexual women. There is no information on potential confounders. Better evidence is required, preferably monitoring sexual orientation in research using the existing validated measure and fully reporting results. Tweetable abstract: Lesbians have less uterine cancer than heterosexual women; bisexuals have more pelvic pain and cervical cancer.
Article
Full-text available
Ongoing political controversies around the world exemplify a long-standing and widespread preoccupation with the acceptability of homosexuality. Nonheterosexual people have seen dramatic surges both in their rights and in positive public opinion in many Western countries. In contrast, in much of Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, Oceania, and parts of Asia, homosexual behavior remains illegal and severely punishable, with some countries retaining the death penalty for it. Political controversies about sexual orientation have often overlapped with scientific controversies. That is, participants on both sides of the sociopolitical debates have tended to believe that scientific findings—and scientific truths—about sexual orientation matter a great deal in making political decisions. The most contentious scientific issues have concerned the causes of sexual orientation—that is, why are some people heterosexual, others bisexual, and others homosexual? The actual relevance of these issues to social, political, and ethical decisions is often poorly justified, however.
Article
Full-text available
Recent findings suggest that sexual orientation has an early neurodevelopmental basis. Handedness, a behavioral marker of early neurodevelopment, has been associated with sexual orientation in some studies but not in others. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 20 studies that compared the rates of non-right-handedness in 6.987 homosexual (6,182 men and 805 women) and 16,423 heterosexual (14,808 men and 1,615 women) participants. Homosexual participants had 39% greater odds of being non-right-handed. The corresponding values for homosexual men (20 contrasts) and women (9 contrasts) were 34% and 91%, respectively. The results support the notion that sexual orientation in some men and women has an early neurodevelopmental basis, but the factors responsible for the handedness-sexual orientation association require elucidation. The authors discuss 3 possibilities: cerebral laterality and prenatal exposure to sex hormones, maternal immunological reactions to the fetus, and developmental instability.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: This study was conducted to explore the association between sexual orientations and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)-related parameters. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study with participants recruited from the regular outpatient clinic at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan between July 2012 and December 2013 was carried out. A total of 97 women met the criterion of having been diagnosed with PCOS. Among these 97 women, 89 were heterosexuals and eight were self-identified as lesbians. At the same time, 78 women without PCOS were enrolled to serve as the control group. Participants were given a standard questionnaire and had blood withdrawn for biochemical analysis of androgen parameters—including total testosterone, androstenedione, sex hormone binding globulin, free androgen index, 17β-estradiol (E2), luteinizing hormone, and follicular-stimulating hormone. The biochemical data were measured to compare the PCOS clinical parameters present in people of different sexual orientations (lesbians and heterosexuals). Results: The women with PCOS, regardless of sexual orientation, had higher percentages and serum levels of hyperandrogenism-related clinical parameters than the women without PCOS [acne (87.5% and 60.7% vs. 23.1%), p
Article
Full-text available
The UK Parliamentary Enquiry and USA Institute of Medicine state that lesbians may be at a higher risk of breast cancer but there is insufficient information. Lesbians and bisexual (LB) women have behavioural risk-factors at higher rates compared to heterosexuals such as increased alcohol intake and higher stress levels. Conversely, breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent women yet income levels in LB women are relatively low. This systematic review investigated all evidence on whether there is, or likely to be, higher rates of breast cancer in LB women. Cochrane library (CDSR, CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, NHSEED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Web of Science (SCI, SSCI), SIGLE and Social Care Online databases were searched to October 2013. Unpublished research and specific lesbian, gay and bisexual websites were checked, as were citation lists of relevant papers. Included were studies in LB populations reporting breast cancer incidence or prevalence rates, risk model results or risk-factor estimates. Inclusions, data-extraction and quality assessment were by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. Searchers found 198 references. No incidence rates were found. Nine studies gave prevalence estimates - two showed higher, four showed no differences, one showed mixed results depending on definitions, one had no comparison group and one gave no sample size. All studies were small with poor methodological and/or reporting quality. One incidence modelling study suggested a higher rate.Four risk modelling studies were found, one Rosner-Colditz and three Gail models. Three suggested higher and one lower rate in LB compared to heterosexual women. Six risk-factor estimates suggested higher risk and one no difference between LB and heterosexual women. The only realistic way to establish rates in LB women would be to collect sexual orientation within routine statistics, including cancer registry data, or from large cohort studies.
Article
On average, the length of the index finger (digit 2) divided by the length of the ring finger (digit 4) on the right hand, is greater in women than in men. Converging evidence makes it clear that prenatal androgens affect the development of digit ratios in humans and so are likely responsible for this sex difference. Thus, differences in 2D:4D between groups within a sex may be due to average differences between those groups in prenatal androgen exposure. There have been many reports that lesbians, on average, have a smaller (more masculine) digit ratio than straight women, which has been confirmed by metaanalysis. These findings indicate that lesbians were, on average, exposed to greater prenatal androgen than straight women, which further indicates that greater levels of prenatal androgen predispose humans to be attracted to women in adulthood. Nevertheless, these results only apply to group differences between straight women and lesbians; digit ratios cannot be used to classify individual women as gay or straight.
Article
Gynecologic Oncologists are sometimes consulted to care for patients who present with diverse gender identities or sexual orientations. Clinicians can create more helpful relationships with their patients if they understand the etiologies of these diverse expressions of sexual humanity. Multidisciplinary evidence reveals that a sexually dimorphic spectrum of somatic and neurologic anatomy, traits and abilities, including sexual orientation and gender identity, are conferred together during the first half of pregnancy due to genetics, epigenetics and the diversity of timing and function of sex chromosomes, sex-determining protein secretion, gonadal hormone secretion, receptor levels, adrenal function, maternally ingested dietary hormones, fetal health, and many other factors. Multiple layers of evidence confirm that sexual orientation and gender identity are as biological, innate and immutable as the other traits conferred during that critical time in gestation. Negative social responses to diverse orientations or gender identities have caused marginalization of these individuals with resultant alienation from medical care, reduced self-care and reduced access to medical care. The increased risks for many diseases, including gynecologic cancers are reviewed. Gynecologic Oncologists can potentially create more effective healthcare relationships with their patients if they have this information.
Article
This study assessed sexual orientation and psychobiological stress indices in relation to salivary sex hormones as part of a well-validated laboratory-based stress paradigm. Participants included 87 healthy adults that were on average 25 years old who self-identified as lesbian/bisexual women (n = 20), heterosexual women (n = 21), gay/bisexual men (n = 26), and heterosexual men (n = 20). Two saliva samples were collected fifteen minutes before and fifteen minutes after exposure to a modified Trier Social Stress Test to determine testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone concentrations via enzyme-immune assaying. Mean sex hormones were further tested in association to stress indices related to cortisol systemic output (area under the curve with respect to ground) based on ten measures throughout the two-hour visit, allostatic load indexed using 21 biomarkers, and perceived stress assessed using a well-validated questionnaire. Results revealed that lesbian/bisexual women had higher overall testosterone and progesterone concentrations than heterosexual women, while no differences were found among gay/bisexual men in comparison to heterosexual men. Lesbian/bisexual women and heterosexual men showed positive associations between mean estradiol concentrations and allostatic load, while gay/bisexual men and heterosexual women showed positive associations between mean testosterone and cortisol systemic output. In summary, sex hormone variations appear to vary according to sexual orientation among women, but also as a function of cortisol systemic output, allostatic load, and perceived stress for both sexes.
Article
Aggressive behavioral characteristics were assessed in groups of men and women by a self-report instrument, the Aggression Inventory, in which adult males reported more physical and verbal aggression than did females. Furthermore, males had higher scores on measures of impulsiveness and lack of frustration tolerance than did females, while women were more likely to avoid confrontation. In a second study, groups of male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals completed this Aggression Inventory after having blood samples taken to assay resting levels of testosterone (T) and estradiol (E). Groups of subjects within each gender were closely matched in terms of age, education, and vocational interests. Women were matched for the same time in their menstrual cycle (early follicular phase). Among men, homosexuals were indistinguishable from heterosexuals on all measures of aggression. Lesbians did not differ from heterosexual women on any aggression subscale except physical aggression, in which the homosexual women had lower scores. T and E were positively correlated with several indices of aggressive behavioral characteristics in men but were negatively correlated with those same measures in women.