Estrogen: A Trip Report
smoothbrains.net
smoothbrains.net
Point being, even the most conservative states haven't (yet) sought to limit treatment for trans adults.[1] Which is not nothing considering how many were so quick to ban abortion.
Also, it's not just the U.S.; plenty of "liberal" Western European countries have reversed course on care for minors. Even the Netherlands, the origin of the WPATH protocol, has pulled back on the reigns for minors, though they haven't yet instituted any prohibitions.
IMO, the trans advocacy rhetoric that equivocated hurdles to gender affirming care for minors as murder backfired. The fact there seems little motivation to limit treatment for adults suggests substantial openness to the issue among even conservative populations. And there are many in the LGTBQ community, include trans community, who share similar sentiments, at least regarding the rhetoric.
[1] Not sure about legislation dictating certain aspects, like waiting periods, but those were widespread as a practical matter in even the most liberal states.
Even with a suppressed puberty, being transgender is extremely hard with high rates of depression and suicide. Any responsible analysis of the aggregate benefits of prescribing blockers needs to factor in the rates of desistence with and without blockers, but proponents of blockers almost always try to frame this discussion as though all kids with gender dysphoria persist in a cross sex gender. And indeed many try to claim that desistence is a "myth", despite most research into the topic.
The DSM criteria for gender dysphoria aren't particularly useful when you are diagnosing kids that play with dolls despite not expressing a trans identity or wish to switch sexes by themselves.
In addition to that, when you are dealing with a conversion therapist it is only natural to depress, but this doesn't mean that it's healthy for you eeither mentally or physically. This is something that was forced onto me as well.
Finally, you seem to be considering transitioning to be inherently something that should be avoided, otherwise why would less kids desisting be considered a negative?
Transition is indeed something that should be avoided if a patient can become comfortable in a same sex gender identity, because even with a suppressed puberty trans people have negative health outcomes across a variety of measures. To say that transition is best avoided if possible isn't a moral judgment against trans people, it's an accurate statement about the disparities in health outcomes.
This is a simplistic model, but imagine trans people have 10% risk of suicide if they don't get blockers, 5% if they do, and cis people have 1%. If I have a cohort of 10 patients with gender dysphoria 8 will desist and 2 will persist without prescribing blockers. And if you do prescribe blockers all of them will persist and transition. The former achieves the optimal health outcomes for the group as a whole. Again this is hugely simplistic, as suicide is not the only healthcare outcome we care about, but it illustrates that desistence rates are relevant to measuring whether blockers improve overall health outcomes.
Of course ideally we'd be able to know which patients will and won't persist. Psychologists attempted to do this for decades, but were never able to reliably predict which patients would and would not persist. People like to point to the extremely low rates of desistence among people prescribed puberty blockers as proof that psychiatrist are predicting correctly. But of course it's also consistent with blockers serving as a determining factor in persistence, and not merely offering "time to think".
Most people who pass by a bus stop don't get on a bus, but if they stop and wait at a bus stop then the probability they soon get on a bus is above 90%. Do you think standing at a bus stop caused them to get on a bus?
It's more like I have two different buses. When kids get on bus A, ~80% of them arrive at destination X and 20% at destination Y. When kids bet on bus B, 2% of them arrive at destination X and 98% of them arrive at destination Y. It sure looks like bus B isn't merely affording the kids "time to think" but is in fact altering their destination, does it not?
The patients in the study are diagnosed with the same criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM. Heck, the author in the study I linked wrote the criteria for gender dysphoria in the latest iteration of DSM. I'm always puzzled by people who insist that the study was including patients that weren't actually experiencing gender dysphoria.
I don't get your bus analogy. Surely the people who get on bus B which goes to destination Y do so because they want to get to destination Y? The act of getting on the bus doesn't cause them to want to go its destination.
And how does that choice seem to affect the outcome? When gender dysphoric children are met with a neutral model of care that primarily seeks to observe the child, about 4 in 5 desist by young adulthood. When they're affirmed, and especially if put on chemical treatment to suppress puberty, 98% or more persist with a trans identity. Even with a suppressed puberty, transgender people experience worse health outcomes than cis people across a variety of measure. To say that the former approach is a better healthcare outcome in aggregate is not a denigration of trans people but a recognition of the challenges they face. To justify affirmation, the improvement has to be demonstrated not only against an adult transition, but also against the population that desist and live life as cis people.
The studies presented above took a sample of the patients that visited a a clinic that voiced distress of their gender over the span of a period of time - the majority of them meeting the criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM - and tracked which of them desisted or persisted in expressing a non-cis gender identity decades or more after the fact (average time from first visit to last follow up was 13 years). The lowest rate of desistance was 70%, 3 out of the 4 were above 80%.
To call the results of a study "unrealistic" indicates that one already knows a "realistic" result would be. This is essentially admitting to bias approach to the data: if it doesn't conform to your predetermined "real" result, and your criticism is solely based on that and not any methods in the study. By comparison, the studies that show extremely low rates of desistance are either studies with kids on blockers, or they are not cohort studies. E.g. studies recruiting respondents from the internet is vastly more susceptible to reporting bias than taking the group of patients visiting a gender clinic over the course of a year.
If you want to actually post and discuss a study finding high rates of persistence under a neutral model of care, I'd be very interested in reading. But my approach towards deciding what a realistic result is leans more heavily towards published research than anecdotal claims.
You say "most research" shows this. From which source(s) do you draw these claims? If I recall correctly there were a lot of methodological issues with drawing this type of conclusion from those studies.
The desistence rate for this study was 87%. Most other studies fall in the range of >70%
> At the time of follow-up, using different metrics (e.g., clinical interview, maternal report, dimensional measurement of gender dysphoria, a DSM diagnosis of GID, etc.), these studies provided information on the percentage of boys who continued to have gender dysphoria (herein termed “persisters”) and the percentage of boys who did not (herein termed “desisters”).2 Of the 53 boys culled from the relatively small sample size studies (Bakwin, Davenport, Kosky, Lebovitz, Money and Russo, Zuger), the percentage classified as persisters was 9.4% (age range at follow-up, 13–30 years). In Green (47), the percentage of persisters was 2% (total n = 44; Mean age at follow-up, 19 years; range, 14–24); in Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52), the percentage of persisters was 20.3% (total n = 59; Mean age at follow-up, 19.4 years; range, 16–28); and in Steensma et al. (51), the percentage of persisters was 29.1% (total n = 79; Mean age at follow-up, 16.1 years; range, 15–19). Across all studies, the percentage of persisters was 17.4% (total N = 235), with a range from 0 to 29.1%.3
You can find studies that find a very low rate of desistence, in the single digits. But those are among children that were put on puberty blockers.
The predominant approach back then was not to suppress incongruent gender identity. The approach was to take a neutral stance and neither foster not suppress the patient's gender identity, called "watchful waiting".
The clinic involved in this study actively was known for conversion therapy. Zenneth Zucker is one of the authors and is famous for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Zucker#Therapeutic_int...
The head of the child and adolescent gender identity clinic at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, has made a career promising the parents of intersexed and transgender children that he can make them “normal”. His method, called reparative therapy, in which children are pushed into assigned gender roles and discouraged from behaving or dressing in a way that’s counter to their ‘assigned’ sex, was once standard practice, but in recent years, has been increasingly scrutinized. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry called his techniques “something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals,” and author Phyllis Burke has questioned the idea that transgendered children should be treated as mentally ill, saying, “The diagnosis of GID in children, as supported by Zucker and [his colleague J. Michael Bailey] Bradley, is simply child abuse.”
https://www.queerty.com/dr-kenneth-zuckers-war-on-transgende...
I imagine a conversion therapy clinic would issue a study that their conversion therapy works. I wonder how long those kids stayed "desisted" or if they were just pressured into the closet again only to transition later in life.
> After his dismissal, Zucker sued CAMH for defamation and wrongful dismissal.[3] In October 18, CAMH settled with Zucker for $586,000 in damages, legal fees, and interest and released an apology for the report falsely stating he called a patient a "hairy little vermin".[3][46] CAMH removed the report from its website and apologized, and replaced it with a summary of the report which has not survived a move to its new website.
Is it intellectually honest to post CAMH's accusations against Zucker, but neglect to mention that they were sued, paid out a settlement, apologized, and removed this report?
And again, what about the other three studies that all saw desistance rates over 70%? Even if you want to ignore Zucker's results on the grounds that he practiced "conversion therapy" (despite winning his defamation case...) it's not the only study conducted on desistance rates absent puberty blockers.
> I wonder how long those kids stayed "desisted" or if they were just pressured into the closet again only to transition later in life.
You don't need to wonder, just read the study: they followed up with patients over a decade later. By comparison, much of the research attempting to study the benefits of puberty blockers only follow up 1 or 2 years later, yet few seem to point out that this is a small duration of time in the context of a child's entire future adult life.
For me, the topic is personal because I was one of those young transgirls who was forced to go through male puberty. I transitioned the moment I was 18. I'm in my thirties now and still trans and still a woman. There's aspects of my body that are still permanently altered by the fact that I was forced to go through male puberty. I still resent the adults in my life, particularly the psychiatrist who strung me a long for years while I had to go through body horror. I would have done literally anything for hormone blockers back then.
I'm sure this is personal for you too. That's why you spend so much effort replying. Maybe we can see common ground? Neither of us want children to be forced to go through the wrong puberty.
Anyways, hope you have a good evening
And the cohort studies among gender dysphoria patients that don't receive blockers do show a majority desistence. This isn't just Zucker's practice finding majority rates of desistence. And your personal stake is still no justification to repeat defamatory statements about him.
Treating people as 'a politically losing issue' is weird to me. There are certainly some nuances to <18 transgender care, but that statement doesn't address any of them and just suggests we embrace political cowardice.
> When policies around it changed, that tipped the scales from the public ignoring trans women or seeing them as victims, towards many members of the public seeing them as monsters who are out to get their children.
This is worse. It wasn't because politics around it changed, it was because republicans (upset that they could no longer target gay people), reused the same crappy arguments against trans people, and then wrapped it in a pedophilic flag.
The change in policy is just effective propaganda making people concerned that random doctors are allowing their children to get sex change operations without consent, when that isn't how ANY of this works. Children <18 can socially transition, get puberty blockers, and MAYBE get hormone treatment. WITH parent consent.
The fact that the media and comments like yours continues to pretend its a reasonable 'discussion' perpetuates the nonsense.
Discussions like this often end up at WW2 and that's not what I'm saying here, but Germany in the 1920s was essentially the Gay/Trans hub of the world until it wasn't: https://www.netflix.com/title/81331646.
But even that's not the beginning of 'trans'.
The reason trans isn't 'flying under the radar', isn't because trans people got too proud. Its because one political party decided to shine the magnifying glass to turn trans into a political issue.
How many do consider reasonable to sacrifice in the name of political expedience?
Trans women until VERY recently were forced to go into prostitution and were excluded by the wider society. Trans people were not force teamed into any war, or rather, this is partially right, they were forcefully forced to pick a team by the side that aims to take away their bodily rights, protections, and mark them as undesirables again.
I hope you make it out here one day, if you haven't already.
Imagine trying to make the same argument about forcing cis women to go through male liberty to "understand men better". It's ridiculous.
Further, studies show that the main predictor of bone structure is whether you started HRT before or after the beginning of puberty, and that outcomes get worse the more it progresses. At 18 you still get some change, but you really need to either block puberty or start HRT before it for optimal outcomes.
And if you don't want to give HRT to trans children, at least get them on puberty blockers. There's pretty much zero evidence suggesting they do anything worse than temporary and reversible reductions in bone density.
The effects are only partially reversible, and only after tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in surgeries, hair removal, voice training, other treatments.
I understand it's a politically losing issue now, but I believe it's due to misinformation, outrage porn, and unfair application of rigor, from mostly the anti-trans side but even allies and trans folk themselves sometimes. To that end I hope this does not feel like an attack - let me know if you have any questions that you think my perspective would help.
This is the key point, imho.
In the transgender rights discourse no margin for error is admitted, but there is like in any other human field (of course).
There have been several cases of people being given a "gender disphoria" blanket diagnosis (eg: the case of Chlementine Breen[1]), which later caused issues. And of course some of those people are transitioning back and started doing activism against the trans rights movement.
It's weird that minors are not allowed to do something trivial as drinking a beer or driving a car yet they're allowed to take on irreversible changes (sometimes involving surgery) to their bodies.
This is hurtful to all people involved, and until this point is not understood, the attrition will continue.
[1]: that case is a textbook example of "no margin error admitted" because in order for their voice to be heard they had to resort to talking to the extreme opposite political side.
The wrong puberty is irreversible mutilation. It's not weird at all given that kids are being given treatment for cancer.
Complete nonsense. The ratio is generally the inverse: there are 100 cis people and 1 trans person. Those are just the numbers, otherwise trans people wouldn't be a considered a minority.
Actually you're the one arguing that the convenience of one trans person is worth more than the life of 100 cis people.
Having the right hormones and not being permenantly mutilated by the wrong ones isn't simply "a convenience".
Damn the social consequences, it's who we are. If transitioning were available as a minor it would greatly reduce suffering.
Don't get me wrong, trans issues do need more study, but this is also an example of isolated demand for rigor. Why the undue focus and criticism of trans healthcare over treatment of other rare medical conditions, which also tend to lack RCTs?
In addition, trans healthcare in Sweden has historically been behind the US. Trans people were forcibly sterilized up until 2013, and trans healthcare underfunded. In Finland the sterilization was required until 2023!
The UK, Italy, Denmark, and Sweden all stopped prescribing puberty blockers to gender dysphoric children following the Cass review. Other countries, like Finland, has stopped earlier. It's not possible to continue insisting that this is settled science, when much of the developed world has broken with the US's approach towards gender care in minors.
> Why the undue focus and criticism of trans healthcare over treatment of other rare medical conditions, which also tend to lack RCTs?
Such as? Furthermore, there were RCTs conducted studying the effects of puberty blockers. They didn't decrease gender dysphoria.
Also, put the evidence (or lack thereof) in the context of the certainty and urgency that proponents of gender medicalization were conveying: People were claiming that gender dysphoric children were going to kill themselves if they don't get blockers. Doctors like Joanna Olson-Kennedy repeatedly claimed that parents had the choice of a dead son or alive daughter, a statement parroted by politicians.
This was all total BS. That very same doctor sat on data showing zero improvement with puberty blockers [1]. And now she's trying to argue that no benefit is actually a good result because the patients would have fared even worse absent blockers. But of course, without a control group there's no substance to that claim.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-...
> "“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,”"
So a treatment that causes a change to not happen does not cause those who are doing well to do even better? Is this the evidence that's supposed to make me want to ban a widely-accepted medical treatment?
Even stronger evidence for stopping the prescription of blockers are the randomized control trials conducted in Finland and the UK. The patients who received blockers fared no better that those that did not. Without a control group, there's no way to prove or disprove Olson-Kennedy's claim that the patient would have fared worse absent blockers. But the few studies on blockers that did have a control group found no improvement over the control.
And you're wrong that these treatments are widely accepted. In about half of the US they're already banned. In Europe, the UK, Finland, Sweden, Italy, Norway, and Denmark have all stopped prescribing puberty blockers. It is no longer correct to call this treatment widely accepted.
> Page 116: "... the consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric GD patients. The evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer."
If you could cite these randomized controlled trials, that would be great.
In how many US states were pediatric gender treatments suspended or phased out by medical bodies because doctors examined the evidence and determined that the treatments were not beneficial? That's what I would expect if the treatments really didn't work. From what I know, this isn't the case for any of the bans. The bans are all laws passed by state legislatures, especially conservative ones, and aren't meaningful evidence of anything except conservative lawmakers' political incentives.
To date, no American study has been conducted that randomly assigned patients into groups put on blockers or not. That's the best way to study the effects of blockers: Have psychiatrists identify a group of 100 people that they think should be put on blockers. Flip a coin to assign 50 of those patients into a control group that doesn't receive blocker and the other 50 do. And then monitor their lifetime outcomes.
This is how the Finnish 2019 study functioned, and they found no improvement over the control group (and the country stopped providing blockers a year later). American gender medicine researches argue that it's unethical to conduct an RCT and deprive have the patient sample access to life-saving care. But of course, they don't know that this care is beneficial - let alone "life-saving" - until they actually compare the outcomes against a control group.
It's unfortunate that the rollbacks in America had to come from politicians instead of an internal process from the medical establishment. But ultimately, North American gender medicine has thus far refused to conduct effective research into the efficacy of medicalized youth gender care like their European colleagues. Politicians, and the public, have recognized this.
If proponents of medicalized youth gender care want to try and justify that this treatment is necessary, they ought to actually do randomized controlled trials. If we have cohorts of children expressing the same levels of discomfort with their gender, and the randomly-assigned treatment group sees better outcomes than the control group, that is a much stronger piece of evidence than only having a treatment group and baselessly claiming that the control group would have fared worse.
Here's a study showing evidence that gender dysphoria treatment in children improves well-being and mental health: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25201798/
There's loads more.
Neither the discussion nor the conclusion mention this, so maybe I'm misinterpreting something?
> We did not detect a difference in the odds of lifetime or past-year suicide attempts or attempts resulting in hospitalization. It is possible that we were underpowered to detect these differences given that suicide attempt items were less frequently endorsed than suicidal ideation items (Table 3). Given this study’s retrospective self-report survey design, we were unable to capture information regarding completed suicides, which may have also reduced the number of suicide attempts we were able to account for. Given that suicidal ideation alone is a known predictor of future suicide attempts and deaths from suicide, the current results warrant particular concern.
Yes, we're at a juncture. But my point is I don't think bans for adult care are inevitable, nor that strict prohibitions for minors need be permanent. If trans advocates and their supports took a breather and figured out how to reframe things, the backslide (such as it is) could be arrested and even reversed. But that will require, at a minimum, taking back the microphone from the most radical "advocates". And probably to depoliticize it. The issue has become highly politically polarized, but that's a relatively recent thing. I was gobsmacked by the generally tame and sympathetic conservative response to Caitlyn Jenner among conservatives 10 years ago. The turn was avoidable and, arguably, reversible.
I agree with your assessment, and I am suspicious of anyone (on either side) who claims that there is an obvious “correct” answer to this issue.
It's the same medicine from the same medical professionals and the only difference is your gender identity.
Even if you were to convince me of this legal fiction that gender identity has nothing to do with idemitiy and is in fact just a medical condition the Supreme Court doesn't care to treat, I still would call it a life threatening attack.
If the Supreme Court denied chemotherapy for cancer patients, it'd be perfectly justified to call it life threatening denial of care. The fact that it's available for cancer patients with other diseases that are treatable via chemotherapy is irrelevant.
It should be up to a doctor to decide if a prescription makes sense for a particular patients symptoms and diagnosis. The Supreme Court should not concern itself otherwise.
At least with Roe v Wade there's an argument to be made about it involving a second hypothetical person. But this? This is strictly between patients, their medical care, and their parents.
But I guess what you’re saying is why is the state passing these laws, which is a fair enough question. The Supreme Court says they are allowed to, and they are the authority on which laws are allowed, so I expect the states will keep doing this sort of thing until the voters tell them not to.
Plato did try to warn us that democracy was a terrible idea.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/18/nx-s1-5421276/scotus-transgen...
At the national level, The One Big Beautiful Bill Act as passed by the House cuts all federal funding for transgender care for adults via Medicaid [3], though that's still pending what the Senate does.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/florida-transgender-health-care-a...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/missouri-governor-signs-...
[3] https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/02/medicaid-bill...
Given that a number have prohibited it from being paid for by the state Medicaid program for adults when it previously was, that is, maybe, a glass quarter full take. (There is also the issue that wrong-gender puberty is a particularly significant suicide risk factor for trans youth, so restricting gender affirming care for youth is a particularly strong assault on trans lives.)
And even then, its not strictly true, as while most states with restrictions that have passed have only restricted care to minors, Nebraska did so for persons under the age of 19, which includes some adults.
> Point being, even the most conservative states haven't (yet) sought to limit treatment for trans adults.
They have not only sought to do so, they have actually done so (as mentioned above). They have not yet implemented broad prohibitions (except Nebraska's for adults under 19), but "limit" and "broad prohibition" are not the same thing, and mere limitations can have the same practical effect as broad prohibitions, as many states demonstrated by making it nearly a practical impossibility to provide (and therefore access) abortion services, even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe; conservative states are following the same playbook with gender-affirming care.
> Not sure about legislation dictating certain aspects, like waiting periods, but those were widespread as a practical matter in even the most liberal states.
No, legally-imposed waiting periods for adult (or even youth) gender affirming care were not present (and still are not present) in the most liberal states. That's a very strange thing to invent to minimize the restrictions being imposed by conservative states.
If you are equating the fact that it can take time, for some services beyond HRT, to save up money and/or jump through whatever hoops are established by your insurance, and find and schedule time with the required provider(s) with legislatively imposed waiting periods and other access restrictions, that's incredibly dishonest (for one thing, the legislative restrictions don't overlap the other ones, they add on top, and, by making it more difficult for providers to operate and thereby reducing the number of providers, make the other issues worse as well.)
Technically, most countries don’t allow people to be openly gay. In some countries, being gay even privately means you get beaten to death or your head chopped off.
Needless to say that transgender people are not even taken into consideration.
If I was gay or transgender, god knows I would rather be in the USA or maybe north Europe than any other country and especially not Africa, Arabia, South America.
So to recap, you're saying, "don't worry about what's going on in the US right now, because you still have it better than most of the world"
Just because something could be worse does not mean that 1. It's nothing to be concerned about 2. That we shouldn't take steps to improve the situation.
Things can always be worse, so this "logic" is always applicable. It's a vacuous argument. Even if you lived in the country with the worst homo/transphobia in the world, you could tell the person, "well, at least your alive."
Moreover, there's nothing constructive about this line of thinking. If people actually lived by this logic, we would live in a static world, because "it could be worse."
> The Legal Medicine Organization performs a number of tests, including at least six months of individual and group therapy sessions, interviews with family members, physical examinations, hormone tests, and chromosomal tests, in a process known as "filtering". Filtering is the separation of homosexuals, who are deemed "deviant", from transsexuals, who are deemed "curable" by undergoing surgery
Also, after further research, Iran is the only Muslim country in the Persian Gulf region that gives trans citizens the right to have their gender identity recognized by the law.
I don’t understand how such a country can be so open on trans right, but it’s really an exception in the world.
I wonder how I would feel when I begin with hrt.
It might be difficult to imagine how those two things are separable if one has lived their whole life with them in congruence. If perhaps, you close your eyes and concentrate on your being, there is a part of you that feels that your sense of manness of womanness is part of who you are? What would you do if you retained that sense, and woke up in the body of the opposite sex and were expected to behave in congruence with that contrary to your internal sense of self? It can be a bit like that.
I wouldn’t want to wake up and be a man, but not for any reasons that are biological. I work in a male dominated field, and most of my interactions are with men, I like the things I can do and get away with, where a man would not have the same experience. The male experience sounds lonely, tough, and a lot of your success seems to just depend on chance and grit. My life has some bad parts, but it’s softer and more comfortable. Would I have dysphoria as a man? I don’t know, to me it sounds like it’d be something closer to envy, but maybe that’s just dysphoria by another name. Maybe that’s the root cause of why so many men lash out at women.
Every trans person's experience is different, I know that the "wrong body" terminology doesn't apply to everyone.
There are two ways to achieve that: changing the body, and changing the mind.
(I'm not claiming one to be easier than the other, but I've noticed most people have a strong preference for changing their body rather than changing their mind)
So this reconciliation is hard, and the topic too sensitive for me to dare asking people I know in real life.
I keep hearing people say "gender is a social construct" and those same people then go on to emphatically support transgender as a concept. This leads me to wonder: if gender is a social construct, is identifying as transgender the result of feeling pressure to conform to a cookie-cutter definition of what someone with male/female parts is meant to be like? If so, is being transgender also just a social construct that can and maybe should be addressed by loosening up our tight expectations for gender roles? Or is being transgender more biological than cultural for you?
Also, not saying you are asking this, but why do trans people have to be the ones always asked to break gender roles? Trans women are so often pressured to be feminine men instead, but our mental health depends on both seeing ourselves as women and being seen as women (depending on the individual). Passing, which is a difficult but reliable path to relieve dysphoria, requires some degree of conforming. And knowing lots of trans women, there are plenty that don't conform. I feel like trans people are held to an unfair standard here.
> Is it biological in basis, spiritual/metaphysical, or cultural?
Personally, I view it as cultural leading to physiological -- what does it mean to be a man? What is "manly"? I think everyone can agree that "manliness" is different globally. Is Bill Gates manly? He's very successful, but is that something that's manly? Is Tom Cruise manly? Or Kid Rock? What about George Takei? Manliness has some multi-axis definition that exists in each culture around the world.
We call that set of vectors "being a man", and we push people who are born with penises into it because it seems to fit most people who are born with XY chromosomes. Personally, I think it's useful to decouple the two ideas -- what my body is, and what the cultural expectations are in how I should behave because I have that body. This is what people mean when they say gender is a social construct -- they are saying, "The piece we call 'manliness' is a separate concept from the piece we define by bodies."
Now, say I experience anxiety, fear, and revulsion about the set of vectors that define "manliness". I have a penis, but absolutely all the vectors for "womanliness" line up with my understanding of how the world works. Clothing, presentation, speech patterns, interests, activities, etc. etc. etc. What do I do in such a case?
I could just live my life in pursuit of the 'wrong' set of vectors -- but socially that's quite dangerous. When people who are "supposed" to maximize one set of vectors try to live with another set, they tend to get bullied (if not violently attacked.) This puts me in a bind -- either live a miserable life pretending to be manly OR push my body to try and match the set of vectors associated with womanliness. (Or, change society to stop caring so much about people who fall outside of the traditional vector space, but that's a lot harder than either of the two other approaches.)
> is being transgender also just a social construct that can and maybe should be addressed by loosening up our tight expectations for gender roles?
For me, absolutely! That's the exactly the sort of ideal world I'd love to be in -- let people just... pursue what makes them feel happy. If someone with a penis wants to get way into makeup and the color pink, stop beating the shit out of them for it.
In addition, there is an undercurrent here that suggests "changing your body is bad," or perhaps some appeal to nature. If you hold these ideas, I would like to ask why, and perhaps reexamine why you believe so.
Fundamentally, I believe it's how they want to be treated culturally, but in our society, we tie gender and sex so closely together, that to be treated the way you want to be treated culturally in society, you need to change some of the sex based features you have.
In a better society, a medical approach wouldn't be needed. In our society, we _should_ accept that it is.
That's my opinion, and it's a pretty weakly held opinion, someone could dissuade me from it.
If this is accurate (which is a big if, and I'm asking the question to try to figure out if it is) then we could make a lot of progress in trans acceptance very quickly by just reframing the whole thing in these terms.
The woman-in-a-man's-body concept sounds mystical and metaphysical in a way that triggers religious objections from substantial portions of the US population, even those in the middle politically. But arguing that males shouldn't need to live up to an artificial and incredibly outdated standard of masculinity? That would be a much, much easier sell.
So I guess the followup to my question is: if for most trans people it is cultural and not biological, why are we doubling down on gender binaries and talking about switching genders instead of creating a campaign that would both get at the root of the issue and be easier to swallow for a larger portion of the country?
(I say this fully aware that biological intersex is a thing, but from what I understand most trans people are not biologically intersex in any measurable way. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
It's an "easier sell" of a different thing.
I'm not seeing a "we" forming here as far as "trans acceptance" is concerned.
Judging from your comment history, your perspective on this seems to basically be grounded in an objection to (more generously: apprehension about) transgender healthcare practices. On purportedly scientific grounds, while ascribing a "politically-driven" motivation in terms of groupthink to people who support these practices. So I think your motivation to ascribe this to a "cultural thing" is grounded in a desire to decouple it from the healthcare thing, because you think it serves an overall political project better.
I'm with you on loosening gender roles. I'm not with you on reducing trans acceptance to that.
> why are we doubling down on gender binaries and talking about switching genders instead of creating a campaign that would both get at the root of the issue and be easier to swallow for a larger portion of the country?
In my personal life, I am probably about as far from "doubling down on gender binaries" as anyone you are likely to encounter. In my experience, I find many more people who are genuinely working past "doubling down on gender binaries" in transgender spaces than I do outside them.
My not-doubling-down-on-gender-binaries approach to it is not an easy pill to swallow for a large portion of the country. It may not even be an easy pill to swallow for you. (E.g. "which" bathroom do you want me in? How easily do you think the rest of the country will swallow that?)
With regard to my comment history: yes. Similar to OP at the root of the thread, I created this account specifically to ask questions that I have about our collective approach to helping trans people in need. At the time I wrote that other comment 9 months ago I had concerns about feeling shut out of the progressive movement entirely because I have doubts about some of its principles. Today I'm here to try to understand better why those principles are so ironclad.
I want to help make a difference in people's lives, but I live in a deep red state and know intimately what kinds of rhetoric would work to accomplish which ends. I want to know what I can share with the fiercely conservative people around me that would best help people like you, and for that I need to understand your goals and needs.
I'm here trying to collect information to better understand people's perspectives on this topic, and so I really do appreciate your feedback. It sounds like for you reducing the rigidity of the binary and freeing up people to be male or female in whatever way works best for them would not be sufficient, and that's good to know. Thank you.
My opinion is that the root of the issue is a combination of misinformation, outrage porn, cognitive and attentional biases, scapegoating, and isolated demands of rigor.
I say that "race is a social construct" but not "gender is a social construct", because gender has both social and biological components.
Gender having a biological component does mean that gender stereotypes that the average person learns are based on biology. The concept that pink is for girls and blue is for boys is social and cultural, not biological. Gender having a biological component is more complicated. A good book that explains this is Whipping Girl by biologist and trans woman Julia Serano:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipping_Girl
The first tenet of this model, the model's core that everything that follows is built upon, is the fact that "subconscious sex, gender expression, and sexual orientation represent separate gender inclinations that are determined largely independent of one another."
Just like cisgender women, not all trans women are "girly".
The fourth and final tenet of this model states that "each of these inclinations roughly correlates with physical sex, resulting in a bimodal distribution pattern (i.e., two overlapping bell curves) similar to that seen for other gender differences, such as height." This idea is what allows for the natural exceptions to gender expression to exist within the system without attempting to claim that they exist in as high of numbers as typical gender expression.
I think it's a losing battle because you cannot make people change their minds about who/what others are. The real solution is true acceptance of differences but that seems very hard to create culturally, people are still tribal no matter what.
I am somewhat pissed off by all this gender culture ward around LGBTQ, trans and feminism because people constantly assume I am gay from my physical appearance and demeanor when I am definitely not.
I am dumbfounded around the trans issue because they make it look like they are the only one being socially pressured into conforming to one cookie cutter identity or another. I believe that most people feel that pressure, just to differing levels and only the outlier at the extreme are considered a "true" man or woman.
The political discourse obliviate the fact that we cannot all be that close to what is deemed the "ideal" in the current culture and everyone is worse off for it.
> If gender is a social construct, is identifying as transgender the result of feeling pressure to conform to a cookie-cutter definition of what someone with male/female parts is meant to be like?
I suspect "identifying as" cisgender is the outcome of this kind of cookie-cutter pressure to much the same degree, if not more. This tends to go unnoticed even in conversations where people are directly engaging with the ideas. (Even though that's part of what "gender is a social construct" is meant to suggest.)
A rhetorical question for cis people: to what degree do you feel your cisgenderness is a result of feeling pressure to conform to a cookie-cutter definition of what someone with male/female parts is meant to be like? I suspect there's more meat to genuinely unpacking this than you might think. Trans people's answers to this might not be that different from cis people's.
"It's a social construct" is an invitation to peek behind (or at least recognize) an abstraction; but it's just a peek into a quite complex story.
"Social construct" doesn't necessarily mean something to rise above, or to dismantle, or to deny. Money is a social construct. Human rights are a social construct. Friendship is a social construct. Sure, one can usefully imagine oneself "above" those things at times, but it's unclear whether aspiring to that is a good idea, and realistically most people won't attain it even if they do. Culturally we must find some relationship to those things anyway, we cannot ignore them.
As I see it, gender is an aspect of a messy evolving cultural system. Yes, the concept of "transgender" is part of that system, though it certainly doesn't fit into that system in quite the same way as "man" and "woman". Trans people tend to challenge or pressure many aspects of this system in some ways that cis people tend not to, but that's not the same thing as denying the system in whole. (Some people do see "gender abolition" as an aspirational ideal; many don't.)
Broadly, I think "is being transgender also just a social construct that can and maybe should be addressed by loosening up our tight expectations for gender roles" vastly underestimates the scope and scale of this cultural system, the degree to which it's tangled up in our lives, and the difficulty of untangling it.
This makes sense, but I guess my question is rooted in my sense that the front that we've chosen to engage to push for re-evaluating gender is the absolute most controversial front we could have chosen. A subtler approach at re-evaluating rigid gender stereotypes—taken decades ago when we instead began to push for reassignment surgery and pronouns—could have already paid off in spades by now.
As is, the rhetoric surrounding transgender issues essentially demands that we accept that there are boxes—male and female—which people ought to be sorting themselves into, and it terrifies social conservatives because it actively encourages people to sort themselves into the boxes rather than accepting the lot they were handed. A subtler approach that started with "why shouldn't boys wear pink?" and progressed from there would have already finished the job by now, instead of creating the polarized warzone we have today. As a bonus we'd have been making life more comfortable for everyone in the middle, people who don't feel the brokenness of rigid gender norms strongly enough to want to switch entirely but still suffer from feeling the need to live up to them.
If most transgender people experience a strong biological component that demands reassignment for biological reasons, I can understand why our chosen approach was necessary. But if sufficiently changing and making flexible our expectations for what it means to be male and female would have been sufficient to make most transgender people comfortable, why did we choose the much harder sell instead?
> A subtler approach that started with "why shouldn't boys wear pink?" and progressed from there would have already finished the job by now.
That's happening. There's been a lot of progress, and it hasn't finished the job. Not even as far as cis people are concerned.
(I guess it would be coherent to believe that the subtler approach hasn't worked because of less-subtle approaches like a push for transgender health care. I think that's naive.)
It's a bit cliche, and you might be tired of hearing it, but for what it's worth this conversation brings to mind the "disappointed with the white moderate" paragraph in MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail.
> But if sufficiently changing and making flexible our expectations for what it means to be male and female would have been sufficient to make most transgender people comfortable, why did we choose the much harder sell instead?
I think your sense of "sufficiently changing" isn't aligned with the sense of "sufficiently changing" I would need to tentatively grant that, if you think such a change is an easier cultural sell than "some people are born in the wrong body".
It took me enormous effort to relate to other men, and I was never sure if I was doing it correctly. I would go out of my way to try to learn "how to man," including having typically male-coded interests (like sports, or home repair) that I really didn't actually care about but knew I had to because it was socially expected of me. I knew I had to, because I had to operate in that world, but I was never comfortable, none of it ever came naturally and all of it just felt wrong.
I was desperate to relate to women. It would hurt that I wouldn't be able to participate in that world even though I longed to be a part of it. Often my wife and I would have grill out parties, and I would be at my expected place outside with the guys, talking stuff I hated, but I longed to be chatting with the other women inside. I feel comfortable as a woman, and much more comfortable relating to other women in my life.
Do I still have male friends? Of course. I have men I worked with for decades and that I'm still friends with. Our relationships definitely changed a bit, but we still have shared experiences that bind us together. At the same time, with my female friends, our relationships definitely changed as well. Things felt different. Our conversations got deeper and more meaningful, and I feel like I "know" some of them better than I ever knew any of my male friends.
I also kept some of my male interests because I'm interested in them.. I still love aviation and trains. Definitely male-coded interests (though there are quite a few more women than one might expect.) I also picked up, or in some cases learned to stop repressing, typically feminine-coded interests. I have far more fun with dress than I ever cared about doing as a guy. Or, now I proudly own that I read romance novels instead of sheepishly hiding my kindle.
I have known several men, non gay, that just behaved more like women than men. that was fine, and as far as I know they didn’t swapped gender.
Like you can be a duck, happy when around dogs but still be a duck.
Note, again, I am talking about one specific "type" of gender dysphoria, social dysphoria. There are usually far more facets that come into play as well.
And that's also a way you know you're trans, and not just a man that loves spending time with women. Because the relationships dynamics and social expectations are totally different regardless, we feel out of place. And not being seen in the correct way causes ... pretty deep negative feelings.
To be honest? I ultimately arrived at the fact that I just feel happier when I present femme-ish. Usually still jeans and a t-shirt though--I'm not particularly hyperfeminine, as that's just not who I am.
I've decided that it works better for me, and that's enough for me.
Is it silly to "swap gender"? Absolutely. All notion of gender is silly, in my experience. We're told to perform certain appearances and actions and ideas, to socialize and be around people in a certain way. People treat you wildly differently (trust me, sigh) when they look at you and bin you as a woman versus a man--you wouldn't believe how stark of a difference it was even with old friends the minute they started physically perceiving me as a woman.
All of us are just trying to get through a wildly gendered world in a way that makes us happy--the least we can do is allow people their choice of the role they play in this grand performance, as all of us everywhere are acting.
'Transition' for me was just finally deciding that I got to pick how I socialize, how I act around people, how I dress, and so on. Someone could call me a man, perhaps--I wouldn't particularly be fond of it, and it would probably come across as unusual to others given my appearance, but surely it's a thing that could be said to me.
10 years ago I was one of those who believed it to be a mental illness but with age i start to realize that being judgmental without understanding is often a recipe for disaster. Or maybe that’s my testosterone level dropping that make me soft… who knows.
Currently, my gender identity and feminine expression feel (very) correct, but when I was repressing and thought I was a man, both my gender identity and masculine expression felt wrong.
Gendered interests are gender roles. On this topic there seems to be a double bind applied to trans people. Conforming to roles is viewed as bad (see other comments in this thread), but not conforming to them (such as keeping "male" interests) is viewed as evidence our identities are invalid. A lot of trans people do retain the interests they grew up with, but to me, at least, that's just inertia. We are encouraged or often coerced into interests stereotypically related to our birth sex. I felt heavily restricted and unable to explore feminine interests growing up, due to a combination of society, culture, family, and other relationships.
Feel free to ask more, I'm pretty comfortable talking about these things as long as I have the energy.
As for male interests, I like computers and programming. I think of it as less of a "male interest" as a "nerd interest" since most of the males I grew up with were into sports, something I'm very much not.
As for relating to men, I'm attracted to men. I like programming which is male dominated. But I wouldn't say I fully relate to them. I don't really understand a lot of things about men and I think outside of some interest overlap, I don't relate that much.
It varies.
> In my experience with trans women I know, they still seem to relate primarily to men (they still gravitate towards male dominated interests) whereas many gay men I know seem to relate primarily with women, and gravitate towards women interests.
For whatever it's worth, I think observations like this are as useful a cue to look inward for an explanation as they are to look outwards.
For one thing, part of the whole "gender" thing is the way people's preconceptions lead them to parse information about others (and themselves!), and your sense of trends is probably influenced by that. (E.g. when a (gay) man gravitates towards "women interests" that may just be more salient than when a woman does, so you notice it more.) For another, you might be in a lot of male-dominated spaces (e.g. this one), so the set of trans women you know is probably not that representative. These might not be the whole story, but they certainly have a role to play in whatever reconciliation you're seeking. Gender is difficult to navigate: we're all swimming in it.
For me personally: I'm "nonbinary", whatever that means. As I see it today, for me being trans feels like more of a "wrong wholesale gender" thing than a "wrong body" thing. (But I'm open to the idea that I'm just not in touch with my body.) Part of the "wholesale gender" thing is the realization at some point in my life that "gender" was playing a much bigger role in my life than I had realized, including how I relate to people, what interests I gravitate towards, and so on. Something I find deeply aversive.
But I'm also averse to, like, rearranging my whole life to retroactively "fix the gender story" around it, just to make myself more legible. You might parse me as gravitating towards interests that line up with my assigned gender at birth (AGAB), and maybe even as relating to people primarily of my AGAB, and so on. I'm sure some people go further and functionally take this as an excuse to continue to relate to me through the lens of my "birth gender" or what have have you. I'm sure it's easier. From my perspective, I suspect those people are underestimating how much of a clusterfuck the whole "gender" thing is.
Damn.
I'm ashamed I didn't think of that framing myself.
Yep, I'm cis het male. Yep, I studied stem and I program and video game and dabble in motorsport and have experience with in-person and online spaces for all of the above. And yep, most of the trans women I know or have interacted with have been in these contexts. And I've seen a lot of "why are there so many trans women in programming?" "why are there so many trans women in video game dev?" etc.
But yeah, of course I (and the people asking the above questions) don't know how many trans women are in women-dominated spaces, cause we're not in those spaces.
Heck, I don't even know enough about those spaces to posit a plausible example of the mirror phenomenon. Grad school? Fiction writing? uhhhh needlecrafts? Are there forums somewhere where cis women are posting "how come there are so many trans men running needlecraft content creation channels?"?
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought.
Realized I mentioned mirroring on one axis, but not on the other (perhaps more relevant) one - i.e., I also don't know how many trans women there are in women-dominated spaces, and therefore can't really have an informed opinion about whether trans women (or trans people in general) are more likely to prefer spaces dominated by the gender they left or the one they went to.
Obviously, still thinking about this.
Interestingly, this has also been observed and researched by clinical psychologists who study sexuality and gender dysphoria.
A decent summary of the research can be read here: https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-on...
Note the difference in presentation the authors describe between "childhood-onset gender dysphoria" and "autogynephilic gender dysphoria". The males you refer to as relating primarily to men and gravitating towards male-dominated interests are more likely to be in the latter category.
Most trans women I know are the exact opposite, they gravitate towards extremely feminine interests, like makeup, fashion, design, etc. Inherent attraction towards a particular interest only dictates your personality type, I don't think it's meaningful insofar as it relates to gender dysphoria -- I think that stems from a much deeper, much more subconscious phenomenon which is adjacent to body dysmorphia. But I digress.
I proffer a question to those skeptical about gender transition: with the rise of GLP-1 blockers, many have found holes in the body positivity movement, in that a lot of formerly obese people who found solace in Ozempic and lost a lot of weight -- this accounts for a body transformation. Many report their symptoms of body dysmorphia disappeared entirely. Is this not the same for HRT and trans people? The other issue is that many are quick to compare the plight of a trans person to that of an anorexic -- but it's already established that anorexia nervosa is a special class of eating disorder that is multifactorial in origin and etiology.
If you're content with GLP-1 blockers and Ozempic being used to combat obesity, then you should have no issue with HRT. It's essentially the same thing, being used to treat a very similar condition. A lot of obese people don't necessarily want to be skinny, they just want to feel comfy in their own skin, and that's a trait they share with trans people.
Most commonly, this is comparable to people who realize that they have been having problems, for years, because they are "on the spectrum" or have Asperger's or autism-adjacent conditions or, perhaps, some ADHD/ADD challenges. I'm sure that there are many people in the HN community who have been surprised to discover this about themselves.
For example, this man, who has been successful in very many ways: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57045770
For people who discover challenges related to gender identity and dysphoria though, the great difference is that they're not only realizing that they have the "wrong" mind, but they even have the "wrong" physical body, too! [In that sentence, my opinion is that the definition of "wrong" is based more on the traditional viewpoints of conventional culture, and not so much on reality].
For me, in no particular order, these are the elements of sex/gender that I find important (and which were crucial for me to align during my transition):
* My body. This was perhaps the single most important one. Hormones worked wonders here, as well as growing out my hair, shaving, learning to take care of my skin, etc.
* Clothing/makeup went a long way towards making me feel better about myself. It takes a very long time and a lot of practice and skill-building to be "good" at fashion/makeup/etc, but it was worth it.
* My personality. This one is the hardest to describe. I can only say that when my body ran on testosterone, I was miserable, antisocial, arrogant, and annoying, and after switching over to estrogen, I am much happier, better at conversation, more empathetic, and by all reports much more likeable.
* My relationship to other women. It's hard to describe, but as I transitioned I became a lot closer to the women in my life, and grew apart slightly from the men in my life.
I think in part this emerges from the negative side of being a woman in society (being leered at/catcalled/harassed/stalked/patronized/discriminated against/etc). It leads women to stick together and trust each other more implicitly than men. So as a trans woman, gradually being welcomed into this "club" was very gender-affirming (although the negative stuff still sucks :/)
* Name and pronouns. At this point (~4 years) I pass enough in public that I am essentially never misgendered, but on the rare occasion I am, it certainly ruins my day. Pronouns matter more than cis people might think.
* Relationship to my family. Being called "daughter" by my parents, doing mom/daughter stuff with my mom, etc.
There are probably other factors that I'm not thinking of right now, but this is what comes to mind as I write this. And notably, my interests/hobbies aren't really included there. I do software development, I'm into skateboarding and punk music and videogames, I play dungeons and dragons. All "male-coded" hobbies for the most part, but I really just attribute that to the fact that I developed my hobbies as a kid, and as a kid I was a boy with friends who were boys and who did boyish stuff.
I personally don't find that that affects my perception of my gender at all. Hopefully this helps clear up your confusion! Let me know if there's anything I can clarify further.
On a different note,
> At smoothbrains.net, we hold as self-evident the right to put whatever one likes inside one’s body;
I never thought of it that way, but I agree.
Still not evidence.
What does this mean? There has to be a simpler way to get this idea across..
> Perhaps taste could be built out of something like dyadic vibrations, tuned by evolution towards consonance or dissonance in order to generate an attractive or aversive response in the organism?
Same here
My understanding was like... you know those spring diagrams, where edges of a graph are all attached by a spring, and physics sorta causes nodes to cluster naturally? I think this is saying, "I wish all the space around me could order itself into a more natural and pleasing shape."
> Same here
Dyads are like... imagine you had two vectors, represented by lego bricks. After attaching them, rather than having a red brick and a blue brick, you have a particular Red-Blue brick. So, one can imagine these unique shapes move and vibrate in ways that are unique to that pair.
The author is saying, I think, "Individual preferences aren't composed of atomic units, but rather subtle adjustments in all the combinations of those individual pieces. Evolution probably looks for places where those combinations line up nicely (and avoids places they don't line up nicely), and tunes the organism to seek those combinations."
Edit: I’m aware there’s evidence for differences in color discrimination and taste preferences between the sexes. But seeing the differences described from a first person perspective of someone used to being a male is fascinating. It’s a common cliche that women laugh much more than men, for example — and here’s someone saying that being on estrogen made funny things seem much funnier. I wonder what the experience is like for FtM who take testosterone?
One recurring theme I've heard from people going from majority testosterone to majority estrogen is a feeling like a continuous 'buzzing' sensation in their head had finally stopped; this is something I personally experience, and there's a certain degree of relaxed serenity that comes with it for me. (This said, experiences vary a lot, and many who have had both primary hormones prefer the feeling of testosterone.)
I personally think that it's a beautiful opportunity to get to experience life through both sets of hormones; it's offered a lot of interesting perspective on my personal notions of 'self', and allowed me to develop empathy for different experiences others experience in their bodies.
This is super interesting! Do you know what they prefer about testosterone?
> One recurring theme I've heard from people going from majority testosterone to majority estrogen is a feeling like a continuous 'buzzing' sensation in their head had finally stopped
This is also fascinating. As a cis man is there a buzzing constantly that I don’t even notice, that none of the women in my life have?
I get a somewhat similar sensation with enough caffeine now, but the experience of testosterone in my experience is a lot more of a head-rush than caffeine is for present me.
It's kind of neat, because at the end of HRT cycles as the levels shift, it lets me experience varying proportions of one versus the other--it honestly surprised me a lot to experience for the first time how much hormones play into what it's like to be in my head day-to-day.
Ooh, and re: the last question, it's possible that that's something that not everyone experiences--I will say though that that's probably the best way I have to describe what I felt, even though I wouldn't say I actively noticed a buzzing sensation before I started HRT (when my doses are late though, it's definitely something I pick up on).
Chocolate (dark vs milk) and coffee drinks (heavy on milk and sugar versus light on them, or black) follow similar patterns in perception (and actual observed preferences, IME)
Of course, how much of that is nature versus socialization is another matter… but also, the kind of risk-taking and one-upsmanship behavior that might drive men to be more willing to acquire tastes for things that aren’t initially appealing and to so-expand their palates may itself be hormonal, so even one plausible “nurture” cause for this might actually be “nature” one step removed.
But either way, and even if data doesn’t bear any of that out (pretty sure it would, though), the perception that all that’s generally true is certainly common.
TL;DR: Group stereotypes, at least on their face, tend to be quite accurate. It's the implications people draw from or apply to them that can be problematic.
It's somewhat ingrained in (traditional) Japanese culture that women prefer sweet foods and men prefer spicy foods. Young boys enjoying sweets is seen as "funny" since they don't "know" it's a feminine thing yet (not necessarily in a "you can't do that" way, but more in a "cute that he hasn't picked up on it yet" way).
This can be shortened to "XX individuals" since the word applies neither to all XX Individuals nor does your use of the word apply to all women.
Men have better night vision, are more aware of motion, and are better at tracking location and judging distances.
If I'm not mistaken, red/green color blindness is more common in men because it's caused my a mutation on the X chromosome (which men tend to have fewer of). I would guess a similar thing about tetrachromacy.
So those are probably unrelated to color-perception changes due to exogenous estrogen.
That's fine, but when I tell people "Cube Flipper wrote this great blog post!", what pronouns do you want me to use actually use?
I guess I'll refer to you as "they" since you didn't otherwise specify. But the "unknown/unspecified" version of "they" and not the "prefers they" version of "they".
Looks like a great article. I didn't quite make it to the end. The science is interesting, but that isn't a trip I am considering, so I skimmed a little.
If being annoying by (not-)answering with "mu" to all gender/pronoun questions communicates it better, maybe it's a point in favor of being annoying!
IMO it points at some cracks in the perspective that there are different versions in the first place.
appreciate seeing this. I've long identified as someone that's much more muscular than I have been in the past. it's interesting how steroid use for this subset is seen as so different from that same use in the gender dysphoria subset.
They might just be looking for proof that the hormones are Doing Something a lot harder than I do after twenty-something years on them. I sure was looking for that for a while when I started. But this whole post really just reminds me of the time I got some acid that had completely evaporated by the time it got to me (if it had ever been any good in the first place) and I sat there trying to convince myself I was about to start tripping any second now.
It's certainly had an effect on me or I wouldn't have bothered with the hassle and expense of continuing to acquire and take it for more than two decades but I'm sure not seeing more colors or "changing the balance between entropy and harmony" in my awareness of the world around me. My general happiness level has changed for the better. shrug
(I'm also an artist, I was one long before the transition, so maybe I just, like, paid more attention to color and shapes in the first place, who knows.)
The estrogen-to-witch pipeline is however a real thing.
> Not long after, I had jumped through the relevant bureaucratic hoops, and subsequently found myself cycling home from the pharmacy
But if you encounter someone along the way who doesn't want to co-operate, you might need to redo those steps. It's really rather difficult, depending on where you are.
> and subsequently found myself cycling home from the pharmacy with a paper bag filled with repurposed menopause medication
and then no mention after of monitoring of health effects?
> I had jumped through the relevant bureaucratic hoops
(It should be, in my opinion--I don't believe in third parties with no stake making forced decisions for you for what can and can't enter your body--but as someone for whom this is lived experience, you can't do this, especially not at a Walgreens and not without getting LFTs and hormone levels done regularly.)
And yes, the black market is huge - anyone with google and the ability to purchase crypto can get it easily delivered, either domestically, or from china.
Go chug a quarter of a McBurgerStan sized bottle of Tylenol available at near every cornerstore in our country and you’ll literally fucking die a harrowing death. I do not even mildly see your point. Quite frankly those against open access to all medicine need to die. The harm a lack of accessibility causes to society at large is incalculable, because the disabled go unseen rotting away in their homes – if they’re so lucky to even have that.
Many transgender women pre-HRT have very low testosterone levels. It's possible there's some causal arrow between being transgender and having autism, but to be frank much of it could come down to reporting bias, i.e. those with autism are more likely to not care as much about societal expectations and consequently are more likely to embrace being transgender publicly.
This could also be exacerbated by the fact that autism in cisgender women is widely believed to be dramatically underdiagnosed due to gendered societal expectations around behavior and diagnostic tests that only check for traditionally 'male' autistic traits/behaviors.
It's also the case that many individuals transition long after e.g. primary brain development ceases, so it's not particularly likely in my estimation that the body is trying to compensate for past development (given the developmental stage of life is complete).
You are talking about a time before culture? Trans identity shows up as early as Mesopotamia, and there are cultures around the globe that have different genders than just Man and Woman.