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.
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.
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.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/18/nx-s1-5421276/scotus-transgen...
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.
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.
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...
Damn the social consequences, it's who we are. If transitioning were available as a minor it would greatly reduce suffering.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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).
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).
So this reconciliation is hard, and the topic too sensitive for me to dare asking people I know in real life.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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 "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.)
> 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'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.
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.
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].
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.
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."
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.
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).
> 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
> Not long after, I had jumped through the relevant bureaucratic hoops, and subsequently found myself cycling home from the pharmacy
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.
(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.)
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.
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.
calico96•4h ago
calico96•3h ago