Addressing patient gender bias toward trainees in the field of andrology


Like Comment
Related Content

Volume 112, Issue 4, Pages 640–641


Katherine Rotker, M.D., Simone Thavaseelan, M.D., Mark Sigman, M.D.


At the time one of us (M.S.) entered urology, it was a male-dominated field. Throughout his training, he worked with only one female resident, which was not unusual at the time. While the subject of urology encompasses disorders of both the male and female genitourinary systems, most patients, at that time, were male. A literature search for articles on female urology before 1980 drives home this point. The field of andrology was perhaps an even more extreme example. The field was almost exclusively male, and the few women in the field were medical andrologists, not urologists. Bringing residents and fellows in to see and examine patients was rarely an issue. The male patients expected a male physician, and both the doctors and trainees they saw were men. When requests were made to exclude a trainee from a visit, it was attributed to wanting to minimize the number of people in the room and not due to the trainee's gender.

Read the full text here.

Fertility and Sterility

Editorial Office, American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders.