HRT for androgynes

[NickSister]

Anyone here on the mones to try and get your body in-line? Hows it working out?

I've thought about it. I don't particularly dislike my male body but I do feel like it does not match what I feel it should be more like. Was it easy getting recognition and appropriate treatment?

I'm not about to start as I want to have more children. Also I am unsure about whether the risks outweigh the benefits for me. I do suffer from feelings of dysphoria but it seems to be manageable and is becoming more so as I alter my presentation and learn more about myself. But it would be interesting to hear from anyone that is on HRT.

[Caroline]

I started HRT when I was identifying as an m2f, then came to the realisation that while I'm certainly not male I am not really female either and not really that strongly gendered at all, so kind of neut-spectrum (a term I just invented  ).

I need to find a balance of HRT that works for me since I intend getting rid of the outie bits down there.  I feel happier now but I think I'm getting more out of the anti-androgens than I am out of the estrogen.  I sometimes feel as if anti-androgens alone would be the best option for me in some ways, though I'm well aware of the health implications.

I need to get down to a long term maintenance dose, the current dose I'm on is on the lowish side of what m2fs would take for initial feminisation and I'm getting breast growth that I don't really want.  I'm only half way to being 36AA which is ok, but I don't really want more.


I've heard of a few serious cross-dressers taking DHT blockers (such as finasteride) along with a minimal dose of estrogen to gain some feminisation without getting significant breast development.  A similar approach may work well for androgynes.  If your testosterone level is causing you an issue then spiro instead of finasteride would be more suitable.  I am trying replacing some of my estradiol with estriol as estriol supposedly doesn't act on breast tissue very strongly, though this is a decidedly 'experimental' solution.

All in all, useful information about long term results is sparse at best.  I hope this doesn't sound too scary, as long as you start on a low dose and pay close attention to your body you've always got chance to alter things if you're not getting the results you want.  Doing this with proper supervision and with the proper blood tests done before and during treatment is always advised, but I do appreciate this is difficult for a lot of androgynes.

[NickSister]

I find it really facinating the range of transgendered folk out there and how they describe themselves. It is really interesting hearing you say "I'm certainly not male I am not really female either" as I would say exactly the same thing. Yet I would say I am strongly gendered. I think there is quite a difference between androgyns that want to get rid of all gender tells i.e. neutrois, and those that want to express a mix, blend or contrast. I wonder whether these are just different ways of dealing with the same thing or real differences in the way we are gendered? I'm leaning towards it being a case of same gender identity, different gender expression..

Thanks for your comments Andra.

[Seshatneferw]

I wonder whether these are just different ways of dealing with the same thing or real differences in the way we are gendered?

My guess would be, a bit of both.

I'm leaning towards it being a case of same gender identity, different gender expression..

That depends on what you mean by gender identity. Can't really speak for anyone else, but for me that's where things get interesting. With respect to gender as a social thing, I do have a pretty clear androgyne identity: I don't consider myself either as purely masculine or feminine, but rather something in between. My gender expression fits within male variation, although sometimes just barely. Then again, most of the time it fits within female variation just as well.

With respect to the biological aspects of sex, I have a male body and a female identity. A while ago this made me think I was a transsexual, but over the summer I've come to the conclusion that that's not the case. Still, I can see your point about 'same gender identity' and to a point agree with it.

My take on this issue is that none of the gender-related factors are binary, but rather all have some sort of a sliding scale. People who are far enough on certain scales are labelled transsexuals; those who are not quite that far tend to drift towards some variation of ->-bleeped-<- or androgyny, depending on their exact position on these scales; and a bit further on there is the cisgendered majority. Nevertheless, there are no clear lines between these categories, and there are more than just one dimension involved.

  Nfr

[NickSister]

Good question. What do I mean by gender identity? mmm I guess on one hand we all identify as being androgyne yet we all as you say fit on some kind of scale (whether it be a two dimensional or multidimensional scale). In labelling ourselves I think we have the same gender identity - an identity which describes a range of 'gendered states'.

But what I really was alluding to is a theory that there will be some of us, just to simplify as an example, with the same quantities of masculine and feminine or are positioned at the same place on the scale, yet some will want to express a mix of male and female and others will want to remove their gender tells altogether.

Thinking about it now I don't really 'believe' this is the case, just external musings I guess. I think our desired gender expression is not seperate to our internal gender identity.

[Jaycie]

But what I really was alluding to is a theory that there will be some of us, just to simplify as an example, with the same quantities of masculine and feminine or are positioned at the same place on the scale, yet some will want to express a mix of male and female and others will want to remove their gender tells altogether.

I think the real question here,  is whether the masculine and feminine even exist at all,  or if they're just social constructs that have no inherent meaning.

Thinking about it now I don't really 'believe' this is the case, just external musings I guess. I think our desired gender expression is not seperate to our internal gender identity.

That's something i'm not sure i could agree with.  Gender expression is also mostly socially based also. When that term is used, it makes me think of clothing and makeup and the like. Which in relation to expression has been societally influenced and it very malleable.

Now if you want to go into physical parts and call that gender expression you'd have to actually gender 'body parts.' I think that if you asked many that fall into the TG categories if they think that a body part that they have, and want removed, just by it's existance changes their gender identity you'd find a chorus of resounding no's. So just by that logic,  expression and identity can't possibly be linked that tightly.

But back to the masculine and feminine thing. It's kinda a confusing set of terms to me honestly. Those two terms really don't have any more of a static definition than man and woman do. I think someone would be hard pressed to come up with something that is 'solidly' male that couldn't be quickly and easily contradicted. So mere actions really can't be gendered so 'being' masculine is either just impossible, or so ethereal that it would have to be more of an inherent concept rather than something more solid.

So with all of that,  if actions can't honestly be gendered,  and physical features can't be gendered,  then hormones that cause physical features can't be gendered either.  In essence they're just chemicals, and i don't think anyone truly wants to resign their identity to 'just' that.

It kinda leaves everything in a bit of a pickle,  with all of the above,  gender doesn't have much of a definition at all other than it being simply the innate knowledge of the person themselves.  *shrug*

That's just my take on the whole mess in a tiny little nutshell.   

[NickSister]

I think they are not seperate in that gender identity drives your desired gender expression. I agree, does not make sense that expression changes your gender, more that your expression reflects your gender identity (but the actual expression is influenced by what society considers masculine or feminine).

I think at a basic level masculine and feminine are real as biological concepts rather than learned behaviour. But I think our actual genders are probably nature influenced by our environment rather than just one or another.

You probably can't look at actions, physical features, hormones, and society in isolation. Maybe only looking at all these things collectively could you say someone fits certain patterns that suggest a certain gender, hence there is no clear definition.

Maybe it is only as you said "it being simply the innate knowledge of the person themselves"

My brain hurts 

[Jaycie]

I think at a basic level masculine and feminine are real as biological concepts rather than learned behaviour. But I think our actual genders are probably nature influenced by our environment rather than just one or another.

Well when you mean masculine and feminine as biological concepts are you referring to the differences between 'sexes'?  It's my own opinion that the only true reason those differences exist are for procreating purposes,  nothing more.  ( in the physical difference sense )  I just don't think you can refer to masculine or feminine in such a manner. The better part of society i think only uses those terms to describe actions and that's a flawed concept in and of itself.

Now,  as for gender being influenced by ones environment.  That seems flawed at the core to me. I mean it doesn't allow for children that 'know' that their identity isn't correct and revolt against every attempt by the parents to shove them back towards the societal standard. Some do revolt too far back the other way also,  it takes some mental gymnastics to not say that "i'm not X" but then go to realize that you don't have to fit Y's stereotypes either.

When you say though, that expression is influenced by what society decides, that's if you decide that society has a box for you to squeeze into. But what about someone that doesn't have a societally defined  'gender identity'?  We then run into the problem that if it isn't defined by society then an 'expression' doesn't exist for it either.  Telling someone that they can't possibly what they feel because it hasn't been defined by society stinks of the same people who will tell someone who identifies as m2f or f2m that they can't possibly either male or female cause society won't define them as such.

The last point though,  looking at something collectively,  that sounds just like stereotyping. Which i think most people will agree isn't the greatest of things to do. I think it's best to take each person as an individual. 

[NickSister]

Well when you mean masculine and feminine as biological concepts are you referring to the differences between 'sexes'?  It's my own opinion that the only true reason those differences exist are for procreating purposes,  nothing more.  ( in the physical difference sense )  I just don't think you can refer to masculine or feminine in such a manner. The better part of society i think only uses those terms to describe actions and that's a flawed concept in and of itself.

In a way yes, I was referring to sexual differences. On the whole I think humans and most other animals are physically built on a binary system in that we have a female base and males are like an add-on modification of this basic design. Yeah, those exist for procreating purposes. But I think masculinity and femininity stem from this binary as a useful extension on the basic model as we move beyond basic instinctive functioning. These become useful in terms of social role differentiation in a concious species as a form of specialisation. This can lead to greater efficiencies as a species. To facilitate this I think we have this inbuilt thing that makes us naturally gravitate towards having different behavioural roles - this is what I think gender is from a biological perspective, though it definitely is not a concrete thing otherwise it looses the benefits of flexibility. So I think it is all based upon physical sex as one building block. But I think at some point in our past, as a species, we became too socially complex and for whatever reason we gained the capacity to have gender which transcends physical sex difference. Could be mere accident, design flaw or an advantageous evolutionary development...this is the way I see it

woo, sorry about the terribly long sentances 

Now,  as for gender being influenced by ones environment.  That seems flawed at the core to me. I mean it doesn't allow for children that 'know' that their identity isn't correct and revolt against every attempt by the parents to shove them back towards the societal standard. Some do revolt too far back the other way also,  it takes some mental gymnastics to not say that "I'm not X" but then go to realize that you don't have to fit Y's stereotypes either.

I think it can be shown that our gender can have both physiological and psychological components. I'm arguing from the perspective that gender identity is just one part of our overall gender (where gender is a construct of identity, behaviour, expression and thought etc..). I'm suggesting that how it effects us, how we think about it and how we express are all influenced by our environment. This is not to say at the core our gender identity itself can't be fixed. I personally think it is fixed at birth.

When you say though, that expression is influenced by what society decides, that's if you decide that society has a box for you to squeeze into. But what about someone that doesn't have a societally defined  'gender identity'?  We then run into the problem that if it isn't defined by society then an 'expression' doesn't exist for it either.  Telling someone that they can't possibly what they feel because it hasn't been defined by society stinks of the same people who will tell someone who identifies as m2f or f2m that they can't possibly either male or female cause society won't define them as such.

All I am saying is that part of how a female appears is dictated by what society says they should appear like. Yeah, I agree about the non-societal defined gender identity. That is part of the dilemma of having a non societal defined gender. We do run this problem. It exists. I face it. We are in agreement here.

The last point though,  looking at something collectively,  that sounds just like stereotyping. Which i think most people will agree isn't the greatest of things to do. I think it's best to take each person as an individual. 

I'm suggesting it is far more complex than a simple stereotype. More the interaction of the parts creates the whole, and this whole can be achieved in a number of different ways. One action can't tell you someone's gender, but put it with the context of a whole range of things and it can give you a clue.

[Jaycie]

In a way yes, I was referring to sexual differences. On the whole I think humans and most other animals are physically built on a binary system in that we have a female base and males are like an add-on modification of this basic design. Yeah, those exist for procreating purposes. But I think masculinity and femininity stem from this binary as a useful extension on the basic model as we move beyond basic instinctive functioning. These become useful in terms of social role differentiation in a concious species as a form of specialisation. This can lead to greater efficiencies as a species. To facilitate this I think we have this inbuilt thing that makes us naturally gravitate towards having different behavioural roles - this is what I think gender is from a biological perspective, though it definitely is not a concrete thing otherwise it looses the benefits of flexibility. So I think it is all based upon physical sex as one building block. But I think at some point in our past, as a species, we became too socially complex and for whatever reason we gained the capacity to have gender which transcends physical sex difference. Could be mere accident, design flaw or an advantageous evolutionary development...this is the way I see it

Well in this realm i don't think you can really make a humans vs. other animals comparison. I don't think many other species will honestly forgo a need in favor of a want but that happens every day for human beings. It's that extra layer of thought that changes everything.

Still though,  you haven't defined what masculinity and femininity actually are. The single instant you try to assign one type of behavior to one or the other you're wide open to contradictions. By saying that behaviors are really in any way connected to sexual characteristics you discount the existance of a good portion of the population.

I mean it's blatantly obvious that birth sex and gender aren't in the least required to be connected and congruent or else we wouldn't have a transgendered population at all. It would seem to me that even trying to assign behavioral roles to one single 'gender' is a large mistake to make.

I think it can be shown that our gender can have both physiological and psychological components. I'm arguing from the perspective that gender identity is just one part of our overall gender (where gender is a construct of identity, behaviour, expression and thought etc..). I'm suggesting that how it effects us, how we think about it and how we express are all influenced by our environment. This is not to say at the core our gender identity itself can't be fixed. I personally think it is fixed at birth.

I'm not completely sure how you mean that gender has physiological and psychological components.  If you mean that the identity can cause one to need to make physical changes to adapt then i'd agree with that. If otherwise,  i'd need a little further explanation.    But i guess i fail to see how the identity itself could be less than the whole.  If you're trying to add in physical characteristics into gender then you attempt to mesh sex and gender together when they've been shown to be quite different.

But yes,  our environment does affect how things are sometimes thought about. The key though is to think past those influences into what you honestly feel about the subject. It's almost like expecing someone from the southern U.S. to be a racist, sexist, and an all around raging bigot just because there are some parts of that environment that say that those are good things to be. It would be a flawed concept from the start.

All I am saying is that part of how a female appears is dictated by what society says they should appear like. Yeah, I agree about the non-societal defined gender identity. That is part of the dilemma of having a non societal defined gender. We do run this problem. It exists. I face it. We are in agreement here.

It's not 'just' a problem though,  it's a problem with a solution,  one that almost nobody would honestly take. Society is wrong.  Plain and simple. The solution is to disregard it.  It's 'not' something that's simple to do though. And really,  on that point,  i'm not sure that society really DOES know what a 'female' is. All that there are are the stereotypes that very very very few people even begin to meet.

I'm suggesting it is far more complex than a simple stereotype. More the interaction of the parts creates the whole, and this whole can be achieved in a number of different ways. One action can't tell you someone's gender, but put it with the context of a whole range of things and it can give you a clue.

I have to say that i completely disagree with most of that statement.  Thinking that you can 'know' anything about a person without them telling you directly is a dangerous path. It's nothing but an assumption and we know where those lead.  You can try to make assumptions about a person's physical sex,  what parts they may or may not have, but even then you can be mistaken. To say a collective of actions can be gendered buys in to the stereotypes.  That guys are strong and aggressive and go-getters. And that women are soft and gentle and nurturers.  We all know that's a load of crap. 

How would one be able to assume the gender of someone who identifies as non-gendered to begin with being as that there is no group of actions or inactions to hint to it?  ^_^

[NickSister]

Good points. I think we are using the same terms but use them to mean different things or concepts. Bit of a muddle to work it out eh?

I've been thinking about gender as a collection of many things that makes up a person from social expected roles to internal gender identity. I suppose it could describes a tendency for action or thought or behaviour or role or the way someone needs to be a bit like to fit in (or not) with a role prescribed by society. Yeah, a bit wooly, I have not thought too hard about it 

I have not been looking at masculinity and femininity as gender themselves. More as components that go into making up our gender identity. I've been suggesting that maybe these components are biological in origin as they mirror the physical binary system. I would describe them as an inbuilt, physiological inclination for certain behaviour, thought or expression patterns, not an absolute. Having certain amounts of each might give rise to different gender identities.

I think we actually agree on some things. I agree that you can't take a discrete thing and attribute it to a particular gender. I don't think you can identify someone gender just by looking at one behaviour or preference. I am not saying that all guys are strong and aggressive and go-getters. It is more to say that if someone is aggressive and strong maybe it is part of their gender expression whatever that may be.

Confused? I am,

[Shana A]

I find it really facinating the range of transgendered folk out there and how they describe themselves. It is really interesting hearing you say "I'm certainly not male I am not really female either" as I would say exactly the same thing. Yet I would say I am strongly gendered. I think there is quite a difference between androgyns that want to get rid of all gender tells i.e. neutrois, and those that want to express a mix, blend or contrast. I wonder whether these are just different ways of dealing with the same thing or real differences in the way we are gendered? I'm leaning towards it being a case of same gender identity, different gender expression..

Yes, it is fascinating, the range of gender possibility is endless. I also identify as definitely not male, however not really female, I feel more neither than both. I have no desire to get rid of all male gendered physical traits, I would prefer having a few more female physical traits though, however long term hrt isn't practical w/out surgery, which I don't want. If there were no health risks at all, I'd take hormones, but since there is, I deal with the body I have as best as I can.

I don't think these are all same gender identity, when I hear people describe being neutrois or bigendered, it sounds very different than my experience of my gender, so I'd say that they're all different identities. Funny thing is that they could all have a similar appearing expression 

Zythyra

[NickSister]

I think you're probably right Zythyra,

My theorising is getting out of control. I'm already starting to contradict myself   

[Jaycie]

I think you're probably right Zythyra,

My theorising is getting out of control. I'm already starting to contradict myself   

Lol,  well that kinda is half the point of theorizing i think. To bring things to a point where things don't contradict each other. 

You may be right on the pure differences in terminology so i'll try to clarify how i'm using it. These are just my own personal definitions within the context of my previous posts.

Sex = The physical traits that are common to procreating pairs.  In the way that breasts aren't gendered,  but they can be 'sexed' in the arena of procreation uses.

Gender = ones internal identity.  This is the part that i'm trying to flesh out here,  so far i've come up with nothing but what it's NOT within societal and biological contexts.

Now to me masculine and feminine are just flawed concepts from the start. They're arbitrary groupings of traits and behaviors that aren't even necessarily common to either.  I also think that using 'society' as any kind of a benchmark is a mistake also since society changes constantly. What may be masculine today may be feminine in 20 years.

On the term 'gender expression' though,  i have a hard time with this one,  because in reference to sexed traits it's almost a misnomer. The existence or not of said traits are inconsequential to ones gender. It may be more comforting to be without them but the mere presence doesn't change the internal at all. When referring to it in clothing etc.. type terms then it's very societally influenced and therefore impossible to give a set definition to.

But anyways,  it is a very sticky concept altogether. 

[Shana A]

But what about someone that doesn't have a societally defined  'gender identity'?  We then run into the problem that if it isn't defined by society then an 'expression' doesn't exist for it either.

Jaycie,

To me this is the hardest aspect of being androgyne or other gender outside binary. Most people see what they've been trained to see since childhood. Male or female, no other options. Society tries to put us into one of those two boxes as soon as they see us. No matter what we do or say. I think it will come around, but it's going to take time. People are finally starting to understand the idea that someone can change gender, getting them to understand the concept that someone might be something else entirely...

My theorising is getting out of control. I'm already starting to contradict myself

Nicksister, I think trying to fit folks like us into binary gender boxes is a total contradiction 

Zythyra

[Jaycie]

Jaycie,

To me this is the hardest aspect of being androgyne or other gender outside binary. Most people see what they've been trained to see since childhood. Male or female, no other options. Society tries to put us into one of those two boxes as soon as they see us. No matter what we do or say. I think it will come around, but it's going to take time. People are finally starting to understand the idea that someone can change gender, getting them to understand the concept that someone might be something else entirely...

Oh of course,  i'm not even talking about tackling this on a societal level really. It sounds so cliche but i just don't think the 'world' is ready for these kinds of concepts yet. And yeah,  it is hard,  because it requires you to think completely outside of everything that todays society 'wants' you to see in reference to gender and whatnot.

It's not so much that i'm trying to mold opinions at all,  most of this is somewhat for a selfish benefit,   to get it out in text and see if it holds water.   If it does get some brains working down a slightly different path then it's all for the better.  ^_^

[NickSister]

It is awfully hard to get away from thinking about gender in terms of masculine and femanine.

Internally for me it was a real struggle to come to terms with being neither male nor female, I kept trying to push myself into one or the other and neither worked. Makes you feel like a square peg in a round hole or a round peg in a square hole. But then I realised that I was more a cat shaped peg....I guess there does not need to be a hole does there.

[Seshatneferw]

I think the real question here,  is whether the masculine and feminine even exist at all,  or if they're just social constructs that have no inherent meaning.

Yes. 

That is, there is a clear real-world basis for the concepts, but the exact dividing lines between them (and possible other concepts) are ultimately socially constructed.

In this sense, gender is pretty much like colour. In both cases there is a continuum that is divided into categories, and while that can be done in different ways, there are some patterns in how this happens. In the case of colours, it was discovered almost four decades ago that there is a rough hierarchy for this categorisation: if a language has just two terms, these are for 'black' and 'white'; if three, there is also 'red'; if four, either 'green' or 'yellow' is added; if five, the other one is; if six, 'blue' exists as well, and so on (Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969), Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution, University of California Press). According to current research the situation is not quite that simple (for a summary of later development see eg. Kay, P. and Regier, T., Language, thought and color: recent developments, Trends in Cognitive Sciences  10(2), p. 51-54, 2006), but the basic idea remains that certain colours are in some sense more 'basic' than others. Moreover, the range of colour terms in a language has an effect on how speakers of that language see colours.

It's pretty clear that in dividing the gender spectrum 'male' and 'female' are the first two to be seen, like 'black' and 'white' (or 'dark' and 'light') are in the colour spectrum. For someone who only has those two concepts, it may well be just about impossible to understand that I'm not identifying as either of those but instead something analogous to green. They simply can't perceive it as a separate 'colour'.

  Nfr

[El]

Does anybody know the route you have to take to get on hormones in the uk, i spoke to my doctor about my feelings of gender dsyphoria (at that point as a mtf as i had no idea about androgyny) and it really felt like she didnt care and just wanted to get rid of me. She gave me no help at all really, i would like to get hrt to take of the rough male edges (in a manner of speaking) and also some small breasts would fit me quite well i think. Is androgyny recognised by the medical community?

[Mia and Marq]

I hear the trick is to find a therapist that specializes in gender issues. Theres a list on here somewhere I believe. Those therapists are more likely to be able to understand what you're trying to say. Good luck on finding the right therapist. You'll probably need their recommendation to get HRT going.


M&M