Quote from: FairyGirl on August 20, 2009, 04:57:01 PM
I think it's intriguing too and plan to ask my doctor about it as well. It does make sense, and especially as Nero confirms the authenticity of the results.

some interesting team work goes on here.

Why wouuldn't a doctor approve? just that's it's not the tried and tested thing? I guess there's no reason biowomen can't go on the pill without a break for menstruation, but doctors tend to prescribe/recommend a pill-break for menstruation anyway just cos it's the done thing?

they used to have a contraceptive regiment which more closely replicated a natrual cycle, but gave up on it for some reason, i forget why... possibly just too complicated? Might be worth looking into if you are wanting to convince your endocrinologist or just get ideas.

Well, newer pills like Seasonique only do 4 periods a year. 

I think a doctor might be less likely to approve of a cycling regimen if it's not tried and true because as Gina says, it opens up the possibility for malpractice.  I'm just not sure that there's any reason you could find where such a thing would be medically necessary AND worth the risk. 

A doc has nothing to gain and potentially something to lose.  A transwoman has something to gain and something to lose.  Who should make the decision?

If you ask them to let you do it, they will say no.  If you do it and ask them to monitor it, they have to say yes.

i think i see the difference in what Gina and Jessica are trying to do here, i guess it depends on what you are tyring to acheive by your use of female hormones.

If you are trying to blend in as a female and have a female appearace then there's no real reason to cycle, it doesn't seem to show any benifit, execpet maybe some slight increase in breast growth, but not much significant.

However, i think what gena is trying to acheive is a bodily experience as closely matched as possible to what she would have felt if she was biologically a fully functioning female.

"Fully functioning" is an important bit here, not all people socially classed as female have the full compliment of female functions. There are many infertile women out there who can perform the rest of the female social role quite well, and even  mother adopted children. And there are women who chose to change the way their body functions temporarily or permanently by taking hormonal contraceptives. So it depends on how you define the womanhood you are trying to obtain. It's a matter of philosophy really.

If you want to fit into the female role, then on a steady level of hormones you probably match a lot of women who are on contraceptives, or menapausal, or naturally infertile.

If you want to maximise similarity to the "real" female experience, then maybe cycling makes sense...

sorry i'm going round in circles a bit here, am i seeing this right?

As an asside, i am beginning to think that female is a mere biological function and is totally over-ratted as an identity... only some of the people that society classes as females are full-functioning biological females (bare children) and even then, only for a brief period in their life. The female social role can and should be available to anyone who feels comfortable in it. Guys should be able to wear frilly clothes and go to "chick flicks" SRS or not, and biological fathers should be allowed to peform the social roles of a mother, after the child wis weaned there is no reason they can't... but this would probably go down a bit better in the androgyne section... maybe i'll wander over there.

---

Post Merge: August 26, 2009, 01:42:52 AM

---

personally i think cycling makes life interesting, maybe being a biowoman ain't so bad ... but i could do without a lot of the social baggage of being female ... working on this ...

It's both things.  I want to experience as closely as possible what it feels like to be a natural woman; but I also think cycling is beneficial for breast development.

I'm intregued by the idea that cycling might help breast development? Is it theoretical or observational?

The times when a biological female's breasts grow most are when she is NOT cycling. Though of course co-incidence doesn't equal causation, so i'm not saying cycling stops normal breast growth, just it doesn't co-incide with it.

Naturally breast tissue grows most before the start of menstruation (about 9 to 14 years of age) then growing trails off during the first few years of mestruation (~12 to 16 years, and the first few years of menstruation are usually not a regular cycle, more erratic). Then the hormonal cycle becomes regular as breast growth slows (15 to 18 years).

While a woman is cycling, only the fatty tissue of breasts can grow, and it only grows proportional to over-all weight gain, no faster than belly or thighs. Then, if a woman gets pregnant her breats begin to grow again and her cycle also stops.

The only other time an adult woman would grow extra non-fatty breast tissue is if she is on certain hormonal contraceptives so, again, not typical cycling.

Womens breasts do fluctuate in size durring the menstrual cycle, but they alwayse return to their normal size again. I think it's more of a swelling than a growing. Maybe they get more fluid in them rather than actual cell growth.

So, to the best of my knowledge, cycling hormonal levels are associated with breast growth stopping. Are you sure you are getting a real increase not just a fluctuation?

However a fertile woman's breast tissue is maintained, whereas at menapause (when cycling stops) breast tissue deteriorates a bit i think? Maybe cycling your hormones would help with breast tissue maintence. But i think a menapausal woman's overall eostrogen and progesterone levels drop, hence huge market in HRT.

But generally, a sustained surge of female hormones (like in puperty and pregnancy) would lead to more breast growth than cycling?


Also, you should make sure to take good care of your breasts. It is possible (but rare) for men to get breast cancer, but that's only lack of tissue volume to get sick. So, if you have the ammount of tissue matches a bio-woman, i assume the risk would. The risk may even be greater for a transwoman, because breast-feeding is one of the best things to lower breast-cancer risk, and few (if any) transwomen would get the opportunity to do that. So you should make sure you self-examine and/or just have good "breast awareness" and notice anything that looks odd. Try to find some public health websites from your government on breast awareness, one of the responsibilities of taking good care of yourself as a woman. Take good care of your new wommanly attributes, gals.


Sorry if i'm ranting, i'm just rather facinated by biology.

Quote from: metal angel on August 26, 2009, 02:41:47 AM
But generally, a sustained surge of female hormones (like in puperty and pregnancy) would lead to more breast growth than cycling?

My theory is that, since most breast growth occurrs during adolesence, when hormone levels are fluctuating the most, that it is the surges of hormones that stimulate growth.  You can't have a sustained surge, because that is just an overdose.  I think that a monthly surge, that doesn't go beyond the surge level of a normal cycle, is the closest to the adolescent state that it is safe to do.

Yeah sustained over-dose not good, but maybe the effect of injections every comple of months would be fluctuations on a sdimilar time scale to adolecence and pregrnancy.

Actually replicating the hormonal environment of a natural pregnancy would be the best you could do... but definately not a good idea... that kind of major up-heaval is something even some XX bodies don't react to well. Implants definately safer if you're keen on that llevel of maximisation.

You might be right about fluctuating levels working better, most things tend to loose their effect on the body (smells, pain killers, all sorts of things) after a while. And the menstrual cuycle probably is a good guide to the safe llimits to that. I don't think a regular cycle matches peak breast growth though, girls breasts are often nearly finnished growing before their cycle starts, and completely finished by the time it's regular.

But if you want genuine experience of being female, cycling is closer to it, and there's maybe some reason it would help with bustline.

Quote from: metal angel on August 26, 2009, 01:39:29 AM
i think i see the difference in what Gina and Jessica are trying to do here, i guess it depends on what you are tyring to acheive by your use of female hormones...
If you want to fit into the female role, then on a steady level of hormones you probably match a lot of women who are on contraceptives, or menapausal, or naturally infertile.

Something like that, yes.  My mother had a full hysterectomy when I was really young, so she's been on premarin as long as I can remember.  I figure if a more or less steady level was good enough for her, it's good enough for me.  I'm intrigued by the idea of cycling, but if my levels are where my doc wants them to be, I'm also less interested in messing with something that doesn't need fixing. 

I'm not saying cycling is bad, or anything like that, though.  It's a really interesting idea, but just not really the kind of thing I personally consider worth the risk.  I'm not disparaging anyone's else's opinion or anything else like that, just stating my own personal preference. 

I don't feel that replicating the cycle is so important in regard to the hoped for end-result of HRT.
I think that the occasional hormone level instability is enough, with the associated mood swings...
Personally I'm trying to maintain constant hormone level balance, as to maintain mental stability as well as to promote steady physical feminization.