Readiness, not diagnosis

Evidence Review · ER-002

For most of the modern history of gender-affirming care, the clinical gateway has been a label. To reach hormones or surgery, a person has typically had to be diagnosed — historically with “transsexualism”, later with gender dysphoria or gender incongruence — and then judged, usually by a mental-health professional, to have met that label convincingly enough to proceed. A different organising principle has been gaining ground: that the clinically decisive question is not whether someone’s identity can be authenticated against a diagnostic template, but whether they are ready — whether they understand the intervention, can consent to it, and are positioned to undertake it. This review asks what the evidence does and does not support about organising care around readiness rather than a label. Throughout, “the threshold model” is used as a descriptive lens for that readiness-centred approach. It names a question to test, not a protocol shown to be superior.

The question

Does the evidence support organising adult gender-affirming care around an assessment of readiness — decision-making capacity, informed understanding, and psychosocial stability — rather than around confirming a diagnostic label? And a scoping sub-question: where the two approaches diverge in practice, is there direct comparative evidence that one produces better clinical outcomes, or is the case for a readiness-centred model largely indirect? This review is adult-framed; the paediatric and adolescent literature raises distinct questions and is not adjudicated here.

Why it matters

The choice of organising principle is not abstract — it determines who waits, who is turned away, and where clinical effort is spent. A diagnosis-centred route concentrates a bottleneck at the assessment-and-letter stage, which contributes to the long waits documented across services. It also carries a historical cost: classifying gender-related diagnoses among mental disorders has been argued to deter people from care and to route them unnecessarily through psychiatric specialism [11]. At the same time, the stakes of getting a threshold wrong in either direction are real, which is why the question deserves evidence rather than slogans. Gender-affirming hormone therapy is associated with improved quality of life and reduced depression and anxiety, though on low-strength, mostly uncontrolled evidence [6]; that finding sets the stakes — the care matters — but, as set out below, it does not by itself tell us which access model is better.

What the evidence says

The shift away from labels is already visible across the guideline record, but it is documented as practice evolution, not proven by outcome trials. WPATH’s standards have, over successive editions, moved from a narrow focus on “diagnosing transgenderism” toward gender-affirming care for the whole person; the seventh edition (2012) removed the real-life-experience prerequisite for hormones, and the eighth (2022) foregrounds informed decision-making, patient autonomy, harm reduction, and the flexibility for clinicians to modify criteria in consultation with the patient [1]. A systematic scoping review traces the same arc — from a gatekeeping posture, in which clinicians supplied a “letter of readiness”, toward informed-consent approaches [2]. Historically, the standards even separated eligibility criteria (objective prerequisites) from readiness criteria (a clinician’s judgement that the person was prepared) — so “readiness” is not a new idea, but an existing construct now being asked to carry more of the load [2]. This is documentary and descriptive evidence about how practice has changed; it is not evidence that the newer arrangement yields better results.

The diagnostic label has itself been partly decoupled from the idea of mental illness — a trans-specific classification change grounded in expert review rather than outcome data. In the WHO’s ICD-11, gender incongruence was moved out of the mental and behavioural disorders chapter into a chapter on conditions related to sexual health, while a diagnostic category was deliberately retained to preserve access to services [11]. The reasoning matters for this question: a diagnosis can function simultaneously as a gate (a hurdle to clear) and as a key (the entry that unlocks funded care). Decoupling “diagnosis” from “disorder” weakens the case for the label as a marker of pathology, without removing its administrative role.

A readiness-centred alternative has been explicitly articulated and put into clinics — but the supporting evidence is conceptual and descriptive, not comparative. The informed-consent model has been framed as an explicit alternative to requiring the dysphoria diagnosis, emphasising preparing and educating the patient to make an informed decision [3]. Clinics have operationalised readiness-style criteria — informed consent, social determinants, physical preparedness, and measurable psychiatric-stability goals, while de-emphasising the dysphoria diagnosis — and at least one such in-house criteria set was associated with fewer barriers and more timely progression than WPATH-style criteria in the same service [2]. This shows the model is implementable and can reduce friction; it does not establish that it improves downstream clinical outcomes.

Where readiness has been measured directly, the data are observational and concern feasibility and satisfaction, not comparative outcomes. In a primary-care clinic using an informed-consent model, more than 90% of adult patients were assessed as having the capacity to consent to hormone therapy with their general practitioner, a minority were referred for additional mental-health input, and satisfaction with the process was high [4]. A separate audit characterised and compared the populations attending a WPATH-model clinic and an informed-consent clinic [5] — the closest thing in this set to a head-to-head — but it is cross-sectional and descriptive, and does not demonstrate that either model produces superior health outcomes. Both are single-jurisdiction studies; neither is a trial.

The regret rationale most often used to justify label-heavy gating rests on heterogeneous, contested data, and does not cleanly support either model. The most-cited meta-analysis pooled 27 studies and roughly 7,900 patients and reported post-surgical regret of about 1% [7]. That figure is frequently invoked to argue that strict gatekeeping is unnecessary. But a published critique flags real limitations: heterogeneous definitions of regret, the risk that historical cohorts differ from those presenting today, liberalisation of readiness criteria over the study period, and near-absent representation of non-binary patients [8]. The honest reading is symmetrical: a low pooled regret rate does not prove that loosening assessment is safe, and it does not prove that assessment is what kept regret low. The data are not strong enough to crown either model on regret grounds.

The sharpest disagreement here is ethical rather than empirical, and the evidence does not resolve it. One position holds that requiring mental-health assessment and a referral letter before hormones is dehumanising, evidences mistrust of trans people, and imposes a double standard relative to comparable medical decisions [9]. A countervailing position argues that elevated rates of psychiatric morbidity in the population can support requiring assessment [10]. A conceptual analysis of both care models concludes that neither is a moral panacea, and — importantly for the threshold framing — that an emphasis on assessing decision-making capacity can itself reproduce a gatekeeping dynamic, and that the language of informed consent can mask a return to paternalism in practice [12]. In other words, “readiness, not diagnosis” is not the same as “no assessment”: readiness is an assessment, organised around a different object.

Where evidence is uncertain

Correlation is not causation. The studies closest to the access question are observational [4][5]. High satisfaction under an informed-consent model, or differences between clinic populations, may reflect who self-selects into those services, local resourcing, or clinician culture as much as the model itself. No randomised or prospective comparative design in this set isolates the effect of organising care around readiness versus a label.

The strongest claim is not the one the evidence best supports. The well-supported claim is descriptive: the field has been moving from labels toward decision-making, and readiness-centred care is feasible and well-received [1][2][4]. The stronger claim — that a readiness-organised model produces better clinical outcomes than a diagnosis-organised one — is not demonstrated. Convergent indirect evidence points one way; direct comparative outcome evidence is largely absent.

“Readiness” is a precise term being used loosely. In WPATH’s historical usage it was a clinician-judged criterion of preparedness, distinct from objective eligibility [2]; in the informed-consent literature it shades into decision-making capacity, which has a specific, decision-relative clinical and legal meaning rather than a global verdict on a person. The threshold lens in this review means a structured assessment of capacity, informed understanding, and psychosocial stability — not a clinician’s intuition that someone “seems ready”, and not the patient’s unaided self-assessment. Conflating these senses is where the model is most easily misread.

The operational specifics are untested. What a threshold should measure, what level counts as “ready”, who performs the assessment, and how to stop it hardening into a new gate are not settled by evidence. There is, in this literature, no validated readiness instrument with outcome data attached. A threshold model is at present a coherent and partly evidenced organising principle, not a protocol with a track record.

Key takeaways

• The movement from diagnostic labels toward decision-making and readiness is real and well-documented across guidelines and a scoping review — but as a description of how practice has changed, not as proof of superior outcomes [1][2].
• The diagnostic label has been partly separated from the concept of mental illness (ICD-11), while a diagnosis is retained to preserve access — so the label is both gate and key [11].
• Readiness-centred care is implementable and well-received: in an informed-consent clinic, over 90% of adults had capacity to consent and satisfaction was high — but this is observational, single-clinic, feasibility-and-satisfaction evidence [4][5].
• The regret figures often used in this debate are heterogeneous and contested, and support neither model decisively [7][8].
• The core disagreement is ethical, not empirical; assessing readiness can itself become gatekeeping, so “readiness, not diagnosis” is a change in the object of assessment, not its abolition [9][10][12].
• Overall: convergent indirect evidence supports organising care around readiness; direct comparative evidence that it is clinically superior is limited.

References

1. Coleman E, Radix AE, Bouman WP, et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup1):S1–S259. doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
2. Amengual T, Kunstman K, Lloyd RB, Janssen A, Wescott AB. Readiness assessments for gender-affirming surgical treatments: a systematic scoping review of historical practices and changing ethical considerations. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2022;13:1006024. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1006024
3. Schulz SL. The informed consent model of transgender care: an alternative to the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 2018;58(1):72–92. doi:10.1177/0022167817745217
4. Spanos C, Grace JA, Leemaqz SY, et al. The informed consent model of care for accessing gender-affirming hormone therapy is associated with high patient satisfaction. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021;18(1):201–208. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.10.020
5. Solanki P, Colon-Cabrera D, Barton C, et al. Gender-affirming hormone therapy for the trans, gender diverse, and nonbinary community: coordinating World Professional Association for Transgender Health and informed consent models of care. Transgender Health. 2023;8(2):137–148. doi:10.1089/trgh.2021.0069
6. Baker KE, Wilson LM, Sharma R, Dukhanin V, McArthur K, Robinson KA. Hormone therapy, mental health, and quality of life among transgender people: a systematic review. Journal of the Endocrine Society. 2021;5(4):bvab011. doi:10.1210/jendso/bvab011
7. Bustos VP, Bustos SS, Mascaro A, et al. Regret after gender-affirmation surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open. 2021;9(3):e3477. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003477
8. Expósito-Campos P, D’Angelo R. Letter to the editor: regret after gender-affirmation surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open. 2021;9(11):e3951. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003951
9. Ashley F. Gatekeeping hormone replacement therapy for transgender patients is dehumanising. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2019;45(7):480–482. doi:10.1136/medethics-2018-105293
10. Saad TC, Blackshaw BP, Rodger D. Hormone replacement therapy: informed consent without assessment? Journal of Medical Ethics. 2019;45(12):824–825. doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105611
11. Reed GM, Drescher J, Krueger RB, et al. Disorders related to sexuality and gender identity in the ICD-11: revising the ICD-10 classification based on current scientific evidence, best clinical practices, and human rights considerations. World Psychiatry. 2016;15(3):205–221. doi:10.1002/wps.20354
12. Gerritse K, Hartman LA, Bremmer MA, Kreukels BPC, Molewijk BC. Decision-making approaches in transgender healthcare: conceptual analysis and ethical implications. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2021;24(4):687–699. doi:10.1007/s11019-021-10023-6