Talk:Hormone replacement therapy (trans)

"More transwomen than genetic women are asexual"

From the Transwomen article: "Both however report that the number of transwomen who consider themselves lesbians or bisexual or asexual is higher than it is in the general female population (at least in studies done from the 1980s on)." So according to those studies, there are proportionately more asexual transwomen than asexual genetic women. This would certainly add further support to the argument that MTF transsexuals (likely because many take HRT) are often much less sexual than genetic women. -- Angela

Problems with HRT

I removed the following paragraph from the article:

Critics charge that on many levels, HRT does not truly "feminize" or "masculinize" in any healthy or reliable fashion. For example, MtoF HRT tends to nearly or completely destroy the sex drive. Yet it is not characteristic of a healthy genetic woman to have little or no sex drive. Discovery Health notes that "there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that because women have less testosterone than men do, they have lower sexual interest than their male counterparts. Instead, it seems that women detect and react to much smaller amounts of testosterone in their circulation than men do."[1] Therefore, it is argued that HRT can cause transwomen to have a much lower sex drive than their genetically female counterparts.

That seems to be entirely based on speculation - the article cited uses a lot of "seem"s and "maybe"s, and the author of this paragraph completely ignores that the cited article explicitly states: "In humans, however, there is a more complicated relationship between hormones and sexual behavior."

Also, who argues that HRT causes transwomen to have such a lower sex drive than ciswomen? I have never heard it, and if it were the case, I'd assume other factors coming into play.

Hmm, don't know much about this subject do you?

You mean, besides being transgender myself and having worked in both counceling and political lobbying for years? Well, good that somebody who has found an entirely speculative article and a usenet FAQ can educate me about the facts. -- AlexR 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the alt.transgendered FAQ:

"During the first few weeks on estrogen, a male may experience tingling in the breasts and slight growth. ... After about six months, the male will most likely lose some or all penile functioning. ... The sex drive is almost totally gone."

So apparently you believe it's normal for genetic women to have almost no sex drive? Interesting, if extremely sexist and utterly inaccurate.

First of all, that FAQ seems to be a triffle outdated. Second, that is simply not true - the sex drive is usually reported as being decreased, but not necessarily totally gone, particularly not in the long term. There is one factor that contributes to this perception, though, especially short-term: Transwomen usually experience morning errection, and often also every errection, as particularly unwelcome. Now, for a heathy biological male (which transwomen originally usualy are) sexual excitability is usualy coupled with errections. Now, when female hormones start working, errections decrease. At the same time in most transwomen's lifes, sexual activity, particularly with respect to partners, ceases (if there was much at all before), which has however nothing to do with hormones (as can be seen in cases where the same social situation occurs, but no hormones, for whatever reason, are taken; in those cases, masturbation might still occur solely to get rid of the errection ASAP). This happens because at that time transwomen usually transition, and that is something that does not only keep oneself extremly busy, but also a time of great mental changes and adapting. (In cisgender people, such times also tend to have a decreased sexual activity.) So we have, a few months after starting hormones, a person not experiencing any more the physical signs of sexual drive experienced until then, but also a person simply being to busy to have much sex drive, and to notice much the new signs of sex drive. After another while, once transwomen have settled into their new gender role, most experience a perfectly normal sex drive for a woman.

As for assuming a) that I hold an opinon I clearly do not hold, and b) concluding from there that I have to be "sexist" - well, that is so dumb and cheap it's not worth answering - but a hint: Polite comments begett polite answers. Insulting and dumb comments however might be answered slighly less cordially. -- AlexR 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd want substantial evidence, therefore, before this paragraph is re-included, since I know enough transwomen who's sex drive does not seem to differ from that of ciswoman at all.

Healthy genetic women get wet, get clitoral erections, and can have incredibly explosive orgasms. In contrast, transsexuals on HRT usually lose their sex drive, or nearly lose it. How is that like a genetic woman?

The physical reactions of transwomen naturally differ somewhat from those of ciswomen, whether with or without surgery. Then again, sex is something that mostly takes place between the ears, not the legs, anyway. As for the alleged loss of sex drive - well, it does not happen. See above. Try to get better sources. -- AlexR 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's also another point, namely, that biologial women are supposed to be more susceptible to the effects of testosterone - which also seems extremely unlikely to me.

So you're telling us that the article at Discovery Health is full of crap? Are you telling us that women have about one tenth (or less) the sex drive of men (i.e., that women react exactly the same to the same amounts of testosterone)? Well, I figured you were one of those sexists who believed that women were less sexual than men, and indeed, MUCH less sexual by nature.

I have never said anything of that kind, on the contrary - you are simply assuming that level of testosterone equals sex drive, which is absolutely ridiculous, and not what the article you quote says in the first place. There can be a correlation, but it is most certainly not a simple equation. Go and re-read the article, especially the bit that is not pure speculation. -- AlexR 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are not only transmen to disproove that, but also women who used testo for doping, and on whom it was used for cancer therapy, and none of those usages indicate anything like women being more susceptible to testo than men.

Then why do relatively tiny doses of testosterone revitalize a sexually dysfunctional woman's sex drive to at least as strong as a typical man's? How do transmen disprove anything here?

Excuse me, read your sources - it says that such doses can revitalize a woman's sex drive (but do not necessarily do so, because sex drive is a complex function, not a simple one based on the level of testosterone). It does not say anything about "to at least as strong as a typical man's". (Quote: "Researchers investigating the effects of hormone replacement therapy on women's sexual functioning have shown that taking estrogen often allows sexual functioning to return to normal. In addition, androgens have been prescribed for postmenopausal women to enhance their sexual desire.")

And transmen, women using testo for doping, and women who got it as cancer treatment disprove the idea of "women" being more susceptible to testo than men simply because they are biological women who get testo - were they so much more susceptible to it, they would need far lower doses than cismen to get effects from it, including sex drive, but also others. That however is not the case. QED. -- AlexR 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph sounds to me more like one of those attempts to scare people away from transtitioning than reasonable criticism; it's placement indicating a general problem of HRT, instead of the appropriate place, seems to confirm that, because the only general part are those anonymous "critics" contradicting 80 years of research and practice; the rest is speculation about transwomen only. -- AlexR 08:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not any more anonymous than you are, and I'm far from alone in these criticisms, nor are they anything new. MToF Transsexuals themselves admit that HRT usually destroys their sex drive. Now unless you are going to keep pretending that having no sex drive is NORMAL for women, maybe you need to stop and consider that fact. --Angela

You might want to stop claiming as facts something that simply and plainly is not a fact at all, and stop insulting me and claim that I hold opininons I never held and which can't really be constructed from what I said, unless somebody is downright malicious.

Now, of course, as for you not being alone - that's right, there is a whole industry that keeps coming up with the most ridiculous statements about transgender people and the ill effects of gender reassignement therapy and the imminent Untergang des Abendlands because of them. Most of them, however, are either right-wing nuts, or a particular (any by now very small) brand of transphobic feminists who would rather have the earth transgender-free. We are not going to do either of them that favour. And Wikipedia does not tolerate pure speculation entered into articles, either, so you might as well stop inserting that crap. And if you want to debate that any further, try to be a triffle more polite - and read your sources, and the go and look for a few more of them. Believe me, you need them, if you want to be able to make anything resembling a point. -- AlexR 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is material suggesting that there post-op sexual drive is not necessarily wholly diminished: see http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/SRS.html#anchor104946 for example. However, let's keep disputed material off the article until we can come to consensus as to what to put in the article, for now. Dysprosia 11:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but even when not -wholly- diminished, it does tend to be -drastically- diminished. That's according to transsexuals themselves who take HRT, reflected in the alt.transgendered FAQ and any other guide on the subject. Like the scientists who wrote the Discovery Health article, I'm of the opinion that as a sex, genetic women DO NOT have a lower sex drive than men. Yet it is clear that generally, transwomen do. So either transwomen tend to have dysfunctional sex drives as a result of HRT (and possibly SRS), or their (generally weak or nonexistent) drives are equal to genetic women's. I find the latter option to be absurd, as I know from experience that genetic women tend to be just as sexual as men. -- Angela

Excuse me, but you are working from a completely unproven assumption here - namely that the sex drive of women is just as big as it is in men. So before we get anywhere, you would need to explain exactly what you mean by "sex drive" in the first place. Because, as I explained above, the perception of a transwoman's sex drive does change a lot, but how do you actually want to measure the "true" sex drive of a person? "No errection = no sex drive" just doesn't work. You would have to be able to do that in the first place, and if I remember correctly, sexology has been trying to come up with a solution for that probelm for ages - without any satisfactory results. Obviously, from what is known now, while the physical reactions of men and women seem to be fairly similar, the perception of ones own sex drive is not. And since humans stopped reacting to phycial reactions only quite a while ago, you will need a quite comprehensive explanation first, before we debate any further.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt if you learned how to properly indent in a debate, it sure helps to make it easier to read and understand. -- AlexR 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That women's sex drive is at least as strong as men's is a "completely unproven assumption?" Funny, but that's what I observe in the real world. Why aren't you criticizing the scientists who wrote the Discovery Health article, for making the same "assumption?" Maybe because it's not an assumption at all, but an inconvenient fact that gets in the way of your fanatical support for the sex "change" industry. Sex drive means exactly as it reads - the drive (i.e., urge) to engage in sexual activity. You don't want to believe that genetic women have that urge nearly as much as men do. That's indeed an old entrenched sexist belief, and such canards die hard. Well, it surely is convenient for you to believe that. -- Angela

First of all, the article does not say anything of the kind - you might want to re-read it yourself. Second, I have never stated that I believe the sex drive of women to be necessarily lower than men; unlike you, I understand (and know) that this is a very complex issue, and one that certainly varies from person to person. Thirdly, my "fanatical support for the sex "change" industry" is not exactly fanatical, to put it mildly, but, fourthly, your use of this hate-loaded (incidentally, usually the same people who fight porn use it - what a coincidence) term puts you in the field of fanatical transphobics who will use any sort of bullshit to erradict transpeople. And, fifthly - I am sick and tired of your completely uncalled-for insults and slanders, so I am going RfC now - and if that does not help, further on in formal dispute resolution. -- AlexR 12:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for reading the article, take your own advice! Especially to this passage: "there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that because women have less testosterone than men do, they have lower sexual interest than their male counterparts. Instead, it seems that women detect and react to much smaller amounts of testosterone in their circulation than men do."

-- Angela

This is obviously refering to the relation between testosterone and sex drive, not refering to sex drive in general. But hey, given the rabid accusations and sweeping generalisations you make, I didn't really expect you to catch that. -- AlexR 13:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is obviously referring to the relation between testosterone and sex drive, which does affect sex drive in general. Funny how elsewhere you have -denied- that genetic women are more sexually sensitive to testosterone. Yet that is exactly what the Discover Health article says.

-- Angela

The article does not say so, it speculates that this might be the case. And to assume that sex drive is influenced only by the level of testosterone, as you seem to do, is not only flatout denied in the article, it is also a ridiculous and utterly disproved idea. Had you ever bothered to reply to any of the arguments made, instead of insulting and slandering everybody not 100% agreeing with you, you might have come to the same conclusion. -- AlexR 11:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise that essentially takes the good point from Angela's edit (i.e. the idea that HRT does not completely simulate the exact male or female biological state, but rather that it provides changes that help the patient be more comfortable in his or her body.) It also notes that some transwomen experience significant reductions in sex drive. Though to be honest, I have had transwomen patients who report very satisfactory sex lives, so that isn't a universal at the least. Though to be honest, my pet theory is that its a perception problem. As a friend of mine, who is a transwoman put it to me: if you've been used to driving a ferarri your whole life then suddenly you are driving a yugo... uphill... with a headwind, it seems a lot lacking. However, if you've been puttering around your whole life in a yugo, it doesn't seem so bad. -- NickGorton

Are you saying that women-born-women tend to have much lower sex drives than men ("if you've been puttering around your whole life in a yugo")? I don't think so at all. I think genetic women have sexual urges at least as strong as men's. I know this because I am a genetic woman, I think about sex practically all day long, and I'm capable of orgasms (if anything) -more- powerful than any man I've been with. And my testosterone levels aren't anything out of the ordinary. The same is true for other genetic women I know -- in many cases, they get frustrated because they wear out men. Plus, as the Discovery article points out, "there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that because women have less testosterone than men do, they have lower sexual interest than their male counterparts. Instead, it seems that women detect and react to much smaller amounts of testosterone in their circulation than men do." But of course, it's referring to GENETIC WOMEN, not to transwomen (who are biological males). So something's seriously wrong in the sexist assumption that women have a lower sex drive than men. This is one reason the sex "change" industry so disgusts me, because it thrives upon this sexist belief (among others). TRANSwomen have a lower sex drive, but not genetic women. And there's the discrepancy I pointed out in my edit. That's why HRT has some serious problems.

Your friend's insulting little metaphor doesn't amuse me at all, by the way. In fact, that sounds exactly like a "joke" some delusional sexist male would make about female sexuality. Not funny.

-- Angela

I have already explained to you days ago how the perception of a lower sex drive comes about - you have not even bothered answering that, probably because there was nothing to rant about. Also, I stated numerous times why the assumption that level of testosterone does equal sex drive cannot be correct, you also never bothered answering. Instead, you attack everybody not agreeing with you, and keep repeating an interpretation of this article that most certainly is not based on the article, but on your personal opinion - not to mention that you assume people made statements they never made, and hold opinions which they actually do not hold. So excuse me, but I don't think I will bother answering you until you start to debate the matter, without insults, rants and completely unproven assumtions. Until then, expect your edits to be reverted, unless they show some signs of understanding the issues at hand here. -- AlexR 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well first off, that metaphor was from a transwoman friend of mine.

Secondly, there is a lot of good research that on average not only is the female sex drive lower than that of males, but that it can be stimulated significantly by (low dose) androgen therapy. Now, that's not the only effect, but it is an effect.

Third, stating that women, on average have a lower sex drive, are shorter, have less upper body muscle strength, have better verbal communication skills or worse visual-spatial skills, are more likely to attempt but less likely to complete suicide, live longer, and have more auto-immune disease are not sexist statements. They are stating epidemiologically well-researched trends.

In addition, suggesting that by even discussing such differences one is tacitly approving of female genital mutilation is beyond an intellectual stretch. Its like suggesting that since one is studying the National Socialist movement in Germany, one is therefor a Nazi.

Moreover, the existence of differing means or population trends doesn't imply that there are not tall women who are engineers and short guys who are English majors. It just means that one recognizes there are differences in group trends.

And lastly, I also have to say it sounds a bit disingenuous for you to be complaining that my recognition of the differences between males and females is a sweeping generalization when you characterize pretty much all transwomen as frigid!

Pot. Kettle. Black. -Nick

"Well first off, that metaphor was from a transwoman friend of mine."

And therefore born biologically male. Your friend has no idea what it's like to have a biologically female sex drive.

"Secondly, there is a lot of good research that on average not only is the female sex drive lower than that of males"

Then why do so many scientists utterly reject your belief that women are less horny than men? Obviously, the research you mention might not be so good after all. There is also lots of research which "proves" that blacks are less intelligent than whites, or that Jews controlled the slave trade. Of course, such research has a racist and/or antisemitic agenda. In the same way, your favorite research has a sexist agenda.

"but that it can be stimulated significantly by (low dose) androgen therapy."

Note that the testosterone required is nowhere close to the levels found in genetic men. This indicates that genetic women are more sexually sensitive to testosterone. The female libido is a more fuel efficient engine. So much for "puttering around in a yugo."

"Third, stating that women, on average have a lower sex drive, are shorter, have less upper body muscle strength, have better verbal communication skills or worse visual-spatial skills, are more likely to attempt but less likely to complete suicide, live longer, and have more auto-immune disease are not sexist statements. They are stating epidemiologically well-researched trends."

That some of those statements -may- be true does not mean -all- of them are true. For example, it is not established that women on average, have a lower sex drive. Often, the same "researchers" who make your claim also claim that whites have a lower sex drive than blacks. That such statements are regurgitated ad nauseum does not make them true.

"In addition, suggesting that by even discussing such differences one is tacitly approving of female genital mutilation is beyond an intellectual stretch."

But many scientists disagree with your assertions, in particular, those not affiliated with a racist/sexist agenda that elevates prejudice over the truth.

"Its like suggesting that since one is studying the National Socialist movement in Germany, one is therefor a Nazi."

No. But if one denies the Holocaust, we can say with practical certainty that he is a neo-Nazi. One who denies female sexuality probably won't consider FGM as serious a problem as one who acknowledges the power of women's sex drive. And that brings up another point. If the female libido were as weak as you claim, why would FGM exist in the first place? With Barbara Smuts, I ask, "If female sexuality is muted compared to that of men, then why must men the world over go to extreme lengths to control and contain it?"

It -is- well-established that many women think about sex and have sex at rates comparable to the reputedly "average" (or above-average) male levels. Yet there is nothing to indicate that these women are unusual in their hormonal or biological makeup. Clearly, there is something seriously wrong with your belief. Worst of all, it is simply inaccurate.

"Moreover, the existence of differing means or population trends doesn't imply that there are not tall women who are engineers and short guys who are English majors. It just means that one recognizes there are differences in group trends."

But it is -not- established that women are, on average, less horny than men. Lots of scientists have concluded differently based on available evidence. Those "studies" which make your claim always seem to be associated with some right-wing think-tank. Steve Sailer's Human Biodiversity Institute comes to mind. Yet you are stating your sexist opinion as if it were fact.

"And lastly, I also have to say it sounds a bit disingenuous for you to be complaining that my recognition of the differences between males and females is a sweeping generalization when you characterize pretty much all transwomen as frigid!"

I never made that characterization, so your "point" here is moot.

"Pot. Kettle. Black. -Nick"

Game. Set. Match. -Angela

Angela, please don't cut off my sentences when you quote me. -Nick

Now for your actual response: I have several points to make, Angela.

The first however, is more of a question. Several times, you have made comments that indicate you believe firmly that transgender people aren't 'real' men or women (e.g. your comments about my friend who is a transwoman.) So, for someone who is both non-trans, and who seems at best uninformed about transgender issues, and at worst, frankly transphobic, why is this topic so important to you? I can understand why AlexR and I are interested: we're trans and this is something very important to us. However, I am at a loss why you are so obviously more upset about this than us?

The second point I have is in regards to evaluation of scientific evidence. The problem is that one can generally find a 'scientist' who will support just about any hair-brained idea one can come up with. (For example: intelligent design.) However, it is important to keep a skeptical outlook when one is quoted 'scientific resources' or when one is told that 'some scientists believe.' To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, Michael Shermer, you need to be open-minded enough that you can accept novel ideas, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.

So when presented with ideas that are supposedly 'scientific,' its important to actually question whether the concept seems reasonable and coherent within the context of existing scientific knowledge. And it is also necessary to question whether the 'scientists' being referenced are main-stream or flaky wing-nuts who are unrepresentative of the prevailing scientific ideas. Of course once in a great while the flaky wing-nuts are right, but that does not justify accepting as well-supported, the views of all such wing-nots. In your instance, I believe you are erroneously referring to beliefs held by such 'scientists' as well-supported.

Though another great example is the one you brought up: racial differences in IQ. Of course you can probably find a few kooks who will say that blacks are inherently intellectually inferior to whites (ex: The Bell Curve.) However, mainstream scientists reject this notion wholeheartedly and accept that any tested differences have to do with socialization and environmental influences rather than genetic predisposition. For an excellent debunking of such ideas by a respected mainstream scientist, see Stephen Jay Gould's 'The Mismeasure of Man.'

?Often, the same 'researchers' who make your claim also claim that whites have a lower sex drive than blacks.?

Tell you what, you provide me with a single recent example (1990 or later) of a scientist doing exactly that in a reliable source (mainstream text, peer-reviewed journal) and I will give $200 to the charity of your choice. Of course, there may be such an example, but I haven't come across it. So if you can find it, knock yourself out.

?No. But if one denies the Holocaust, we can say with practical certainty that he is a neo-Nazi.?

Likely, but not necessarily. If you'd like a more detailed explanation of the motives, history, and beliefs of such people, I would suggest reading the section about Holocaust Denial in ?Why People Believe Weird Things? by Michael Shermer.

?One who denies female sexuality probably won't consider FGM as serious a problem as one who acknowledges the power of women's sex drive.?

Right. You are starting to get a bit histrionic here. So essentially what you are saying is that if someone doesn't agree with your views on the female sex drive, he or she is obviously someone who doesn't regard the removal of female infant's clitorises as a problem.

Oooo-Key..... er, ever heard of the False Dilemma logical fallacy?

?It -is- well-established that many women think about sex and have sex at rates comparable to the reputedly 'average' (or above-average) male levels.?

Stating that the population is distributed on a curve and that certain members of the population meet or exceed the mean for another population does not mean that the two populations are the same (or even that their means are the same.) For example, it is also 'well established' that many women are taller than the average male height. That doesn't mean that on average women are as tall as men.

Nick: ?And lastly, I also have to say it sounds a bit disingenuous for you to be complaining that my recognition of the differences between males and females is a sweeping generalization when you characterize pretty much all transwomen as frigid!"

Angela: ?I never made that characterization, so your 'point' here is moot.?

Really? Then was this not your original edit that AlexR reverted? ?For example, MtoF HRT tends to nearly or completely destroy the sex drive. Yet it is not characteristic of a healthy genetic woman to have little or no sex drive. ...Therefore, it is argued that HRT can cause transwomen to have a much lower sex drive than their genetically female counterparts.?

Frigid: cold: sexually unresponsive; 'was cold to his advances'; 'a frigid woman'

Actually Angela, you said exactly that. Game. Set. Match. Indeed. -Nick

BTW, Angela, have a look at the topic Cisgender for a little more information with regard to your transphobic ideas about what makes a 'real', 'biological', or 'genetic' male or female. But then perhaps you'll decide to edit that page too so you can continue to co-opt the transgender identity and voice. [SARCASM]And we are ever so grateful, that you are so helpful and willing to spend so much of your time teaching us about ourselves, our movement, and how to properly define our identities! Thanks! 'Preciate It![/SARCASM]

Though to be completely honest, I don't think this is at all intentional on your part, just lack of education about the issue and experience with transpeople. I am inclined to take Oscar Wilde's view: ?Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.? -Nick

First, transwomen are obviously not the same as biological women. (Nor are transmen the same as biological men.) Transwomen are biological males who believe or claim to believe that they are female. (And vice versa applies for transmen.) If you want to call this factual statement "transphobic," fine. I think your nonsense about female sexuality is scurrilously sexist, so we're even. As for the source of my concern, 1) I find this subject interesting and 2) I am disturbed by the sexist (and inaccurate) assumptions held by some members of the trans community. It appears that the sex 'change' industry, at least to an extent, thrives upon such stereotypes in order to enhance its profits.

You are right that one can find 'scientists' to support anything. For example, I'm sure you can find some 'scientists' to support your hare-brained idea that men are innately more sexual than women: they're often the same ones who believe that blacks are more sexual than whites. One prominent example is J. Philippe Rushton, Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario. You can dismiss him as an irrelevant kook, but he's actually a tenured professor with influential ideas. He believes that blacks innately are more sexual and less intelligent than whites. And he agrees with your garbage about females being less sexually driven than males. Another example is Arthur Jensen. Again, you can call him a marginal "wingnut," yet he's a powerful academic. There's even an influential theory named after Jensen: Jensenism, "the theory that an individual's IQ is largely due to heredity, including racial heritage." (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary) Other scientists who agree with your belief include Garrett Hardin, Seymour W. Itzkoff, Edward M. Miller, Kevin MacDonald, etc. It doesn't take long to notice a pattern: scientists who share your sexist belief are likely to espouse racist beliefs as well. That is because such beliefs are rooted in prejudice rather than objective reality. Your and their beliefs are most commonly found among 'evolutionary psychologists' (also known as 'sociobiologists') with a sexist, racist, and reactionary agenda. You dismiss as "a few kooks" those who "who will say that blacks are inherently intellectually inferior to whites (ex: The Bell Curve)." Yet your belief that women are inherently less sexual than men is just as pseudoscientific. Unfortunately, there are influential tenured professors and academics that continue to promote both bigoted beliefs. Where the first can be found, as night follows day, so will the other.

Stephen J. Gould's arguments against racist pseudoscience can easily be adapted, to devastating effect, against your sexist pseudoscience. Carol Tavris does an excellent job in debunking such ideologically sexist nonsense in the 'The Mismeasure of Woman'. Natalie Angier is also great in 'Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin'. "Men have the naturally higher sex drive, yet all the laws, customs, punishments, shame, strictures, mystiques and antimystiques are aimed with full hominid fury at that tepid, sleepy, hypoactive creature, the female libido," Angier observes sarcastically. It's interesting that the academic racists use the -exact- same arguments that you do. The same "flaky wingnuts" with racist beliefs are the very same ones who agree with your sexist drivel! In fact, I read a racist who used your misleading "height" comparison just a couple weeks ago. Now as then, I'll point out that average differences in height do nothing to establish average differences in sex drive. You say "Stating that the population is distributed on a curve and that certain members of the population meet or exceed the mean for another population does not mean that the two populations are the same." Yes, but consider that these "certain members" are NOT biologically or hormonally unusual compared to the female sex as a whole. Then we must ask: if there's nothing biologically odd about these horny women, how can it be that women are -innately- less horny than men?

Given your aggressively ignorant sexism, you're one to talk about "ignorance!" Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black...

"If female sexuality is muted compared to that of men, then why must men the world over go to extreme lengths to control and contain it?" - Barbara Smuts, primatologist

-- Angela

Actually, lets really deconstruct your arguments and motives a little, Angela, because I've encountered way more of people like you than you have people like me.

I'm guessing you are a college student. Perhaps grad school, but I would venture that you aren't well into your program if you are. You recently were exposed to some sort of academic treatise on transgender people ? most likely transwomen. You are torn between your sense of yourself as a progressive free-thinking radical (since trans is the 'new gay' and you do like to be seen as liberal-enough amongst your friends) and your inner gut instinct that says 'eew, gross.' On a visceral level you feel an affront to your sense of radical feminism that either transmen or transwomen even exist. That is, transmen are simply 'sell-outs' who want the male privilege that is so palpable to you in society. While transwomen are just men who are fooling themselves who should be ashamed at the audacity to even claim membership in the group 'women' since they haven't experienced what you have.

I'm pretty close, huh?

Lemme guess... but some of your best friends are trans. You just wouldn't wan one of 'em marrying your sister (not that you would attend a marriage ceremony anyway as that is just a symbol of the oppression of the patriarchy.)

However, honey, you have no clue WTF you are talking about in this regard. And yes, I called you honey. Not because of any difference in gender, but because I see you as a college student who has probably just discovered political activism.

You want to know oppression? How about the daily harassment and violence that transgender people (in particular transwomen) experience from bigoted people like yourself? You may think of yourself as a progressive left liberal freethinking radical, but you are just as much a ditto-head as any knuckle-dragging neanderthal devotee of Rush Limbaugh. Anything that seems foreign or elicits that 'eew' response from you must be invalid. Especially if it challenges your dearly held, but entirely unexamined beliefs. The experiences of thousands of gender-non-conforming people throughout human history is meaningless to you. The fact that transpeople frequently risk everything, lose friends, are ostracized from society, are thrown out of careers, lose their children, lose their spouses/partners, and not infrequently lose their lives simply to live their lives with honesty and integrity ? well fuck all that. Its gross. It shouldn't exist. These people are just effed in the head. They need to just start acting like 'real' men or women.

Do you have any idea what transpeople risk to live their lives with integrity and honesty? In addition to being trans and being involved in the transgender political movement, I am a physician who treats transgender patients. So I am unfortunately privy to the suffering that people go through at the hands of transphobic bigots like you. And frankly, it disgusts me. Especially when the very bigots who harm these people disguise their ignorance and fear in the guise of politically correct progressive notions or pseudoscientific nonsense.

Moreover, it honestly, (especially as I get older and less idealistic) saddens me more than almost any other sociopolitical trend. Not because it harms transpeople in this one case. But rather because it says to me that the majority of human beings aren't ever going to get past that strong evolutionarily ingrained tendency to hate the 'other.' Having grown up in extreme poverty, perceived as a female, learning disabled, trans, gay, and partnered with a mixed-race person has shown me a lot of what it is like to be the 'hated other.' It has also taught me that this tendency is an almost universal human trait.

People won't stop hating ? its just that the groups are going to change. And the older I get, and the more I try to reduce in myself the effect of that biological tendency to see people as 'outside' and 'inside' one's group, and the more I ferret out the sources inside me of that same kind of bigotry and hatred, the more I realize that while I can develop an understanding and empathy for most groups, there is one that I can't quite accomplish this with: ?politically-progressive? educated people who use their ability to defend bigotry. Its like the punch-line of Shermer's book I mentioned before ?Why People Believe Weird Things.? He added a final chapter that asked why SMART people believe weird things. The short answer was: because they are better at defending beliefs they came to for non-smart reasons. And you, Angela are a prime example.

You are seemingly quite adept at discussing this topic and defending your dearly held beliefs, but you haven't examined the basis of many of your ideas or the implications of those beliefs. For example, you like to deconstruct gender-norms and gendered behavior. The idea that anyone would deny you the right to do or be anything based on the fact that you are a woman repulses you on a deep level. Yet you seek to do exactly that! You deny people the inherent right to self-determine and define their own gender identity because it offends your sense of what a woman or a man 'should be.' That is, because you see me as a woman, I should be required to behave in certain ways and believe certain things ? if I don't I am a sex-traitor.

Have a nice day, and don't let this conversation keep you from studying for your mid-terms. -Nick

What a bunch of garbage. You have no idea what it's like to be severely oppressed. Want to see real oppression? Try being a woman in an Islamic country. Hell, try being a woman in your own country and not hiding it. You are moving UP the social ladder. Even as a pretend-male you get more respect than you would as an ordinary woman.

You can pretend to be a man until the cows come home. But when you start lying about women, that's when I'm going to have a problem with you. It's the disgusting lies of you and your ilk that are oppressive to women, such as your garbage that women are innately less sexual than men. I look at you, and what do I see? I see someone who went from being a self-hating woman to a woman-hating 'man'. By all means, live your life how you want it. But I'm going to point out your sexism and your lies every chance I get. If you think that's hate speech, so be it. I think your lies about women are the real hate speech. I'm not oppressing you. You're oppressing me with your lies.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he of course agrees with every hateful canard you have spewed regarding women. Surprise, surprise. (Not.)

-Angela

Angela, thanks so very much for revealing your true intent and that your 'helpful additions' to the page were the words of a transphobic bigot. That is even more than I had hoped for. I suspected that was your motive from the get-go, however you calling me a 'pretend-man' was more than I could have wished for. Does that mean I am also a pretend queer? ;)

And I pegged you on that college student comment didn't I? May I venture a guess? Women's studies, psychology, or public policy?

Now run along and bother someone else, Angela. Or go study for your mid-terms or something. This page is about transgender people (and predominantly by transgender people,) not a place for you to vent your frustrations on some other topic. Though I have to say, I did get a kick out of your last comment. I just can't help but see you as Dennis from Monty Python's Holy Grail. "Help! Help! I'm being repressed. Did you see that? Did you see him repressing me? That's what I'm on about!" -Nick

The sexism within the trans community is not a different topic. It is a subset of the same topic, since the sex 'change' industry foments and exploits this sexism to make profits. Of course, your disgusting comments that 'women are innately less sexual' only further prove my point. You agree with all the worst stereotypes that the patriarchy employs against women: women are less sexual, less driven, less inventive, less intelligent at math, etc. As for oppression, well it was only a few weeks ago that a 'FtoM' told me that she became pretend-male so she could get respect from society. Enough said.

As for accusing me of bigotry, that's like a Nazi accusing a Jew of the same. Water off a duck's back, honey. You want me to stop 'bothering' you? Stop parading your sexist ignorance around as if it were factual.

-Angela

OK folks - that's Godwin's. Time to stop this. If you want to continue your row, I would suggest taking it to email. On this page, I think it may be wise to get back to discussing the article. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Tweaked the article a little more from the recent edit

Changed it to be a little more realistic given the lack of current research. Saying that most physicians practice X is not supported by any research that I know of (though I would LOVE to have you tell me where that is, I need it for another project I am working on!)

Also, in my personal experience with professionals who treat trans patients (myself included) I find that that tendency to be completely dependent on psych referral is way more presumed than actual ? and its rapidly changing ? more so in the US than Europe. Oddly enough, recently I was calling the national WARM-line (a service provided by San Francisco General where clinicians can call up and ask advice about HIV patients care and speak with an infectious disease specialist.) I was discussing a transgender patient I care for who has HIV, and that I would also be providing HRT for hir. The doc I spoke to on the line spent more time lecturing me about how I should treat hir with hormones and should be understanding that this is a real issue that deserves my care as much as the HIV... etc. Encouraging me to give hir an rx for hormones today w/o delay! He even said this was my chance to (and I am not making this up!) do what I went to med school for in the first place: to ?heal the whole person.? I finally had to cut the guy off and say... look, man, you are preachin' to the choir. I'm trans, K?

Suffice it to say, he totally dug that. Nick

DMPA

Depo-Provera is Depo-Medroxy-Progesterone-Acetate. It is as accurate to refer to DMPA as 'progesterone' as it is to refer to Depo-Testosterone-Cypionate as 'testosterone'.

However, that's essentially a meaningless difference so I'm not going to change the section title. But calling it a progesterone is not only factually accurate, but also in agreement with common parlance.

Added increased detail though. Nick

Added very necessary warning, with reference, and corrected chemical name to match that in linked pages (and normal usage), which all already point out that Provera is not progesterone. I have to disagree with you on common parlance, and cite the facts that progesterone is a unique chemical defined in US and EU Pharmacopoeias, with very different effects to MPA, and so any professional confusing the two risks losing their license and any consumer who fails to distinguish between them risks serious consequences.--Bluegreen 3 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Depo-Provera - Reverted, NPOV

"but since Medroxyprogesterone-Acetate, uniquely amongst the Progestins, disrupts the brain's Serotonin system and can thereby cause very troubling depression, anxiety, or other mental disruption, a three month injection (which can have lingering effects for six months) should nver be given unless the tablet form, which is chemically identical, has been tried first for a reasonable period and found problem-free in that individual at that time in their life."

NPOV. Reverted to the prior version. The study quoted is an animal study, not human. Moreover that is not even amongst the serious risks of DMPA!

Wow, no wonder there is so much dangerous misinformation in these articles if nothing proven in animals can be cited and only dangers you think are already listed in official publications count.

There are very many tests that can only be done on animals, since they would be unethical in humans (not that I'm arguing for animal experiments, but if they have been done it would be unethical to ignore them). It is very well known that official warnings vary from country to to country, and are very subject to commercial and professional politics. Such pressures surrounding Provera are well known. Furthermore some populations can be far more susceptible to certain side effects. It is often offiically decided not to list those for fear of unduly frightening other groups. Since depression is everywhere listed as the most common additional issue with trans people, a product known (see below) to commonly cause, increase or perpetuate depression (not ot mention anxiety and insomnia, all serotonin connected) should be especially suspect in their treatment, and used with the greatest care, since depression can be so debilitating, indeed fatal. Trans treatment is of course not even an approved use for Provera, as a spokesman for the makers is quoted as saying in this article so they would have no obligation at all to list increased risk in trans patients.

I could have cited many more articles but the one I did cite was the first to explain the problem, which additionally provided a useful date. There are many papers raising "unexplained" depression problems linked to Provera in humans, and many more show other ways in which Provera works very differently to ther progestins, invariably in a more harmful way. But if you, for some personal reason, want readers of the main article to be ignorance and suffer then that's up to you. I tried.--Bluegreen 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Basing clinical decisions use of animal studies is reasonable only when the question cannot be functionally or ethically answered by a study in humans. For example the information about many drugs adverse effects in pregnancy is based on animal studies because studies in humans would be ethically (not to mention functionally) difficult. However, when the question can be readily answered by human trials (as this one can) clinical decisions should be based on human trials.

Moreover the kind of study you are talking about has been done ? and the risk of recurrence of depression was minimal. You are basically doing the same thing that the anti-vaccination nutjobs are doing: ignoring the significant findings of multiple large well-done studies documenting the safety of an agent and grasping at the straws of whatever paper you can find by google-ing something as justification of your point. However, assessing the risks and benefits of a treatment means that you have to look at the preponderance of the literature ? which in this case provides minimal if any justification for your argument.

With regard to the off-label use of depo-provera, EVERY DRUG USED FOR SEX REASSIGNMENT is used off label. There is no labeled indication for hormonal use for SRS, and EVERY pharmaceutical company states it does not support EVERY off-label use for its drugs. However, while I would prefer to cite actual research rather than pop-culture as a source for medical information, the Wired article quoted two clinicians who have the same experience I do ? that depo is safe, effective, and rarely causes problems: ?Holly Forster, a nurse practitioner and vice president of medical quality management for the Shasta Diablo Planned Parenthood in California, said women need more contraceptive options, not less. 'I have been a nurse practitioner for 20 years and have administered Depo since it became FDA approved (in 1992),' Forster said. 'I have never seen any reaction like the ones described on the website.'" Nick

There are far bigger issues with which one can criticize DMPA, however that isn't one of them.

Oh, but it is, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Typing "Depo-Provera Depression" into Google provides 11 pages of results, at least 50% academic/medical, those are just the first few, all highly relevant.--Bluegreen 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

This is an article about transgender hormonal therapy. Depo-Provera is one option for some transmen. Amazingly enough, there are transmen who don't want to take T, and who cannot afford a hysterectomy, but who have a great deal of angst about having menses. This is one option for those men which I offer in my own practice. However this is not an article about Depo-Provera. This article appropriately mentions Depo as an option and links to the page that discusses Depo in greater detail.

What is inappropriate is your edit that not only placed too much detail, but placed detail that obviously didn't have a NPOV in an article that is probably already too long. Nick

...Of course that's all described in the wikipedia page on depo-provera, to which this section is now linked.

In addition that statement about only giving DMPA if people have been previously on oral progesterone is frankly, horse-shit.

Once again you wrongly say Provera (Medroxyprogesterone-Acetate) is progesterone, which is clearly contradicted on other pages, and now you try to falsify my writing by claiming I said people should try oral progesterone first. Oral progesterone (such as Prometrium and Urogestan) would give no indicator whatsoever of the mental effects of Provera. Progesterone USP does not cause depression. Only oral Provera (on its own or in other products such as Prempro) would give a possible indication for the mental effects of Depo-Provera.--Bluegreen 3 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

As I said above: Depo-Provera is Depo-Medroxy-Progesterone-Acetate. It is as accurate to refer to DMPA as 'progesterone' as it is to refer to Depo-Testosterone-Cypionate as 'testosterone'.

With regard to common parlance, here are some links that do exactly that.

The Feminist Women's Health Center:

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/bcdepo.htm

A UK-NHS page on 'progesterone-only' contraception:

http://www.doctoronline.nhs.uk/masterwebsite1Asp/targetpages/drugs/pocinj.asp

WebMD:

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/4/1680_50968.htm

Dartmouth's Student Health:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~health/depts/women/depo.html Nick

...It is neither described in the DMPA package insert, nor is it in the FDA indications, nor does it follow current standard of care, nor is it mentioned anywhere in Planned Parenthood's, ACOG's, or any other reputable site on women's health and reproductive choice.

Wrong, Planned Parenthood for just one example.

Depo-Provera is the most "useful" contraceptive for poor women in areas where detailed care is unavailable. It would be likely to be under-reported if poor, overworked, exhausted, oppressed women get depressed, anxious, or suffer insomnia.

The "trying first with pills" method has been developed to work around the problem, since the only other alternative is not to use the injections at all, for patient safety reasons, but they can have value if it is safe for the patient.--Bluegreen 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

The Planned Parenthood page to which you link shows absolutely no indication whatsoever that women should be first tried on ANY oral medication before getting depo-provera. However it DOES say that women with even a history of SEVERE depression can use the shot if watched closely, and that serious problems are rare.

So again, I say SHOW ME anywhere that a clinical organization like Planned Parenthood or ACOG has suggested that oral medications be used as a trial in women before they get Depo-Provera.

Your original quote was: ?a three month injection (which can have lingering effects for six months) should nver [sic] be given unless the tablet form, which is chemically identical, has been tried first for a reasonable period and found problem-free in that individual at that time in their [sic] life.? So show me where you find this recommendation. Its not in any clinical guidance that I've ever heard. Its not in the FDA recommended usage. Its not from ACOG. Its not from Planned Parenthood. Its not what my colleagues and I do in clinical practice.

In fact I find it pretty likely that you either simply made that up OR that you got it from some nutjob pro-life website along with instructions how to bomb a family planning clinic. Nick

Plus you may wish to spell check your edits and ensure they are grammatically reasonable before posting. Nick

Hmmm, I don't think there were any problems in my writing to justify that patronising comment.

Do you only police the F2M section, or should I abandon the entire page, in which much of the M2F information is really appallingly bad, outdated, and dangerous, not least for advocating, and praising bad external documents that uncritically advocate, Provera, Premarin, and Ethynlestradiol?--Bluegreen 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote much of that information, so yes, I do watch it closely. I admit that I would love to have the MTF stuff fleshed out a bit more. I do treat MTF patients (more than FTMs actually.) However, I freely admit that my area of greatest expertise lies more along the lines of FTM treatment. For example, the talk I am giving at the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association's annual conference this fall in Montreal is about hormonal and primary care for FTM patients rather than both FTMs and MTFs. The clinical research proposal I am working on now to be done at the clinic where I practice is solely about FTMs. So, while I can discuss MTF treatment, and certainly provide that treatment, that is not my personal area of greatest expertise or of primary interest.

And would you be referring to the Tom Waddell Clinic guidelines? If you are, you have just thoroughly demonstrated that you are a total nutter. Now, run along. Nick

Fine, no one can be expected to work with someone who behaves like that, and dishes out spiteful insults to boot. It's hardly NPOV. Wikipedia can just continue to be flagged as dangerous on trans hormones, as so many other sites are. This site made out it was welcoming to referenced improvements, but that isn't what happens where someone can treat a subject page like it's their own personal website, no holds barred, and no respect for boundaries, or references.--Bluegreen 3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

As someone who actually provides care for transgender people and sees the results of disinformation like what you spread, I think it is important that accurate information is available. So yes, I will correct ignorance like yours when I see it.

You stated nonsense such as anyone who is to be treated with Depo-Provera should always be first treated with an oral form of that medicine. This is neither advocated by women's health experts, part of the indications and usage information put forth by the FDA, nor in any way resembles the practice of what health care providers actually do in my experience.

So you were proved wrong and since you can't demonstrate otherwise you will claim that you are leaving because I'm such an evil bad meanie. Which is of course fine, as long as you actually leave. And with regard to this being 'flagged' as dangerous by the trans community, I doubt that will happen. Two weeks ago I had a transgender patient of mine bring in a copy of this and another wikipedia page with them to my clinic to ask questions about it. And it is precisely that reason that I will continue to watch this page and correct false and misleading information posted by people like you. Nick

I'm sorry Nick, but Bluegreen is *absolutely* correct regarding medroxyprogesterone acetate. It is not smart at all to place someone on Depo-Provera when this progestin, when taken in oral form, tends to cause severe depression, virilization (such as body hair), higher lipids, deep vein thrombosis, and bone loss. It is *not* progesterone, it is a synthetic analog of progesterone. If you want progesterone, you'll find that in Prometrium (aka, Utrogestan, Microgest). It is the worst medication available for HRT, even more so than Premarin or ethinyl estradiol. In the MtF groups (such as those on Yahoo!), we try our best to make sure a DIYer doesn't take that stuff. And then to think that they'd inject it as a depot, one is asking for big trouble there. We have some intelligent and well-informed members that'd be glad to share information and studies on MPA, plus you can search the archives. I'll give you the address to the group if you want. I can either post it here or you can email me. Don't know if posting it here is OK.

The article is sadly lacking on MtF information. I've contributed a little to that part but not sure if I should add more as it comes directly from my notes. I'd somewhat trust the FtM information though, those who've worked on that have done a pretty good job. And oh by the way, thank you for defending transwomen in your debate with Angela. :) WiccaIrish 05:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it is lacking in MTF content. My area of particular interest is FTM medicine. Though I certainly treat both transmen and transwomen in my practice. But then the lack of transgender women's information is not due to it being deleted, but rather no one has added it. Though in my experience, there is overall far more information out there about MTFs than FTMs, so I don't feel too bad about putting up what interests me.

With regard to Depo-Provera. You and BlueGreen are welcome to believe whatever you want. However, the American College of OB/Gyns, Planned Parenthood, just about every legitimate provider of women's health care... and I disagree with you. Depo is as reasonable a choice as other options, effective, and in my book, the FDA's somewhat politically biased black box warning is right up there with them not making Plan B OTC.

Because newsflash: every drug, and every type of contraceptive medicine has on offer has side effects. The pill is great, but sorry, I can't always manage to take a pill at the same time every day, you think a sexually active 16 year old girl will? Ortho-Evra? Great... only have to remember one patch a week. Buuuut... more thromboembolic disease. IUD? Excellent choice for completely monogamous older women. Especially smokers in whom OCPs are a bigger risk. But everyone was terrorized by the Dalcon Shield debacle and so no one wants one. Depo? Great especially for younger adolescents... till they get old enough to be trusted with (and want) a pill a day.

The point is that there is no such thing as the best or worst method of contraception, only the safest and preferred method that an informed patient chooses. And there is NO ONE who provides birth control to women who is going to make her take an oral med as a trial before Depo. That is not the standard of medical care no matter what you and BlueGreen would like it to be. So if its 'not smart' to do this, perhaps you should consider writing ACOG or planned parenthood a little note or something about it?

And lastly, the article did not advocate Depo for transgender women, it was suggested for transmen to stop their menses, which is physiologically like giving it to cisgender women for contraception.NickGorton 07:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of websites out there that have a lot of BS information on MtF HRT, unfortunately. As for assuming that I was referring to transsexual women, I had ALL humans in mind. ::sigh:: I suppose I am going to have to educate. Hydroxyprogesterone caproate is a better alternative as a depot, it goes by various names such as Gesterol LA, Hylutin, Proluton Depot, etc. Even endocrinologists who treat TS persons may not have done the research. There are still some who prescribe Provera - despite the results of the National Institutes of Health study linking this medication with heart problems and breast disease. Here are some comments from the Yahoo! group I frequent:

"Before taking any injections of Depo-Provera, test yourself with Provera pills. VERY important. Provera may cause depression, anxiety in some and if that is the case, better to experience that on pills, where the substance is more quickly eliminated from the body. You don't want to remain in such a state for a whole month (or more), which would be the case with injections, where substance remains in the system for up to three months. If you react well with pills, than Depo-Provera can help substantially reduce your T levels and is a possible alternative." -- Erika

"The most serious side effect of depo-provera for me would be the depression it has been known to cause. The stuff also has a long half-life so if you get depressed it may take a while for it to clear out of your system." -- Julia

"Binning the Depo-Provera is sound thinking, NOT for possible negative hepatic effects, but because Provera has a nasty habit of causing suicidal depression, and generally messing up your head. The oral version of it is bad enough, the IM is worse because of it's rather long half life; if you were one of the many unlucky ones you would go through hell for quite a while until the level of the drug dropped in your system to the point you would feel its effects." -- Joan

"The depo provera is just plain bad stuff all around. There are more Law suits going on against the makers of depo provera then you can imagine. This stuff is BAD in any female or male or elaphant for that fact. It has hurt many woman all through out this land and continues to hurt them in one way or another even YEARS after they are off of it. Too many Doctors still prescibe this for T.S clients today. Not only is it mentaly un-safe for a T.S or any human. I just wanted to clear this up a bit. See I had to close friends use this and at first they thought it was the cats meow...I was going to do it too even though many in here warned me not too. My friends continued to do very well and I ordered it and Kelly bless her loving heart wrote me several post and emails and RE EDUCATED me about depo provera and when my order came I flushed it down the toilet and soon after this my friends began to develope serious problems.... I know of several genetic females which became very unhappy they ever heard of the stuff." -- Jami

"I can add that my ex once gave DP a try since she was bad about forgetting her pill. She'll now tell anyone to avoid that stuff like the plague. Caused her to fall into severe depression ( which was highly noticable ), not to mention the havoc she said it caused on her natural cycle. I've also came to learn that both well known TG treating Dr.'s in Atlanta both endorse the use of DP. A new friend of mine is getting her HRT via a Dr. and he basicly won't rx. her spiro, it's DP only with him." -- Tracy

"I HIGHLY do not recommend Depo-provera because it can cause extreme anxiety and suicidal level depression. Trans women have commited suicide on Depo-provera and it has very much fallen out of favor." -- Dana

"I was taking medroxyprogestrone acetate (provera) for 10 months before switching over to prometrium about 2 weeks ago. I had vertigo, depression, high cholestrol and some unwanted masculination from provera. Vertigo was the worst. I could read just fine, but when I looked away it was all blurry and took several minutes to adjust. Now that I have changed over to prometrium, these things are going away." -- Krissy

Depo-Provera May Be Associated With Significant Bone Loss:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/494511

Depo Provera Appears to Increase Risk for Chlamydial and Gonococcal Infections:

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/nichd-23.htm

WHI findings, FDA, JAMA, NIH:

http://www.whi.org/findings/index.php

http://www.whi.org/news/index.php

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/estrogens_progestins/default.htm

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/3/321

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/04-03-02.htm

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/press/02-07-09.htm

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/whi/estro_pro.htm

WiccaIrish 09:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the point of flooding this page with personal opinions of people talking about something entirley different? Provera is mentioned as an option for transmen, so what is the point of quoting a ton of transwomen here - transwomen who do not seem to have a medical degree; and from my experience I sincerely doubt they ever gave much thought about transmen, either. Also, nobody claimed that that stuff was entirely harmless, every hormone has side effects, and everybody taking them should know that. So I'm affraid that both WiccaIrish and Bluegreen come accross as extremely patronising here and as so many transwomen do, completely ignoring transmen once again. Maybe those two could spend a bit more time doing something constructive (like fleshing out the transwomen's section) instead of criticising something they obviously neither know anything about, nor want to know anything about. -- AlexR 11:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I take offense to this. I was being patronizing solely because Nick happens to be a transman?! I gave credit to the fact that the FtM section was pretty good and even thanked Nick for defending transwomen. I extended my thanks and gave credit. That was genuine! I actually have more FtM friends than MtF, two particular FtM friends I have helped me to summon the courage to start HRT and one particular transguy is a very close friend of mine and I love him dearly. My first post here showed no animosity towards Nick, but I felt that he was being a little rough with me and didn't acknowledge my thanks. How do you even know what is going through my mind or my intentions? I think you have a thorn in your side concerning transwomen.

My statements unfortunately have been misinterpreted. I was very aware right from the beginning that this was provided as an option for transmen. Transwomen or transmen was besides the point. The serious side effects of Depo-Provera are well known. It appears that certain ones here refuse to take heed or at least add a cautionary note to your article, even in light of the evidence, if only because it happens to come from transwomen? Or that one of those women as a matter of fact has a medical degree or that we haven't researched the studies ourselves thoroughly? God forbid a transwoman shares any information with you. If it affects transwomen and natal women, then it will show up in transmen as well. Transmen are no more immune to these side effects than transwomen are. I would hate for a young transguy to look at this article and wind up taking this medication without having read up on any of its very potential serious side effects and taking it lightly. Should we transwomen refrain from saying anything at all about a medication that most transwomen have used at least once in their life and are well acquainted with? Provera (as well as Premarin and ethinyl estradiol) was used for decades by MtFs before much safer medications came out. It is so typical to assume that we transwomen only think of our fellow sisters and not our brothers. If any negative comment regarding FtMs were to show up on the group I frequent, all the women would vehemently defend transmen. So shame on you for turning this into a "Us vs. Them" issue. WiccaIrish 13:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, curb it! I was not turning this into an "us vs. them" issue, but it was pretty obvious that you, for all the TM friends you claim to have, were only able to bring up quotes by transwomen, as a "proof". And given that there are alternatives for transwomen by now, but that alternatives for transmen for this particular treatment are still somewhat rare, those quotes were completely and utterly meaningless - as you should be aware if you ever thought for a moment about this. Not to mention that you are trying to give medical advise in a decidedly NPOV fashion, as Nick has been trying to show you for weeks now - and sentences with "should" in them are always quite problematic - and all the more so for medical advise. Are you going to pay if WP gets sued over such a sentence? -- AlexR 16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, the group I frequent is populated almost totally of transwomen. When transmen post there we try our best to give suggestions and resources to check out. Unfortunately, none of the transmen who occasionally show up from time to time ever stay long enough (which is understandable). It's common sense that if many of both trans and natal women are having horrible side effects from MPA, it would affect transmen as well. Whether the quotes were from natal women, transwomen, or transmen is besides the point. There is no difference between transwomen's and transmen's progesterone, glucocorticoid, or mineral corticoid receptors. It is unwise to dismiss the high potential for bad side effects with MPA, and even more so to not at the least suggest to try the pill form first to see how one's body reacts to such a substance before administering a depot that can last for many weeks. To me and others that are also well-informed on this medication, this makes perfect sense.

I'm not sure if I'll continue this discussion, but I'll see. I make sure the young transwomen I meet do not make poor choices in which medications to take, and the same for young transguys. It is a shame that there are limited options to choose from, but at the very least add a cautionary note to the article so that transmen are more informed and aware of the consequences. This is not like the hubbub over such medications as Accutane or Paxil, the incidence of bad side effects (such as severe depression) for MPA are higher. Take a quick gander at the groups on Yahoo! or MSN concerning MPA: http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=provera&sc=0&sg=0&ss=1 , http://partners.search.msn.com/partner.asp?q=provera&CO=50&RS=CHECKED&qap=&FORM=COENUS&dom=groups.msn.com&cfg=COENUS&ba=0&v=1&lng= -- WiccaIrish 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish: “The serious side effects of Depo-Provera are well known. It appears that certain ones here refuse to take heed or at least add a cautionary note to your article, even in light of the evidence, if only because it happens to come from transwomen?”

Hello? Like I said, EVERY medication, and in fact every treatment we offer has potential side effects. Motrin can cause massive gastrointestinal hemorrhage, renal failure, blindness from Stevens-Johnson-Syndrome, anaphylaxis, and exacerbations of asthma. Atenolol (a BP medicine) can cause heart block, exacerbations of asthma, and severe allergic reactions. Epinephrine (Epi-pen auto-injector) can cause heart arrythmias, stroke, heart attack, amputation of digits, and severe hypertension. Testosterone causes weight gain, insulin resistance (as a prelude to diabetes), worsening lipid profile, endometrial hyperplasia, and acne.

Geeze, those sound pretty bad, eh? Certainly as bad or worse than what you are quoting for Depo-Provera, correct? Well I take every single one of those medicines, precisely because the risk benefit analysis works to my advantage in each case. Motrin helps my headaches, atenolol treats my hypertension and valvular disease, testosterone treats my GID, and I am damn happy to have my epi-pen when I need it.

But that is the point with Depo as well. You are trying to vilify a drug that is no worse and no better than many other drugs that we use. While it, like all drugs, has risks... pregnancy or termination of pregnancy in a fourteen year old girl is pretty freaking risky as well. Moreover, in the specific instance that we are discussing, treating transmen, Depo probably has LESS overall risk than testosterone. Not all transgender men are ready for or even want androgens, but they may be very disturbed by having periods. So this may represent a benefit for them that outweighs the risk. Just as the benefit of not having a headache is worth the risk of taking a motrin for me.

In addition, this is an article about OPTIONS FOR therapy for transgender people. Since most transgender men use T, Depo is a rarely used medicine that should certainly be mentioned as an option. However, listing every single warning and contraindication in the package insert is not appropriate, especially when the article links to an entire wikipedia entry on Depo Provera that goes into much greater detail in a more appropriate place.

And lastly, any estrogen at doses given to pre-op transgender women is FAR FAR FAR FAR riskier than taking a Depo-Shot. Yet you accept this risk, and I as a provider of care and a prescriber of medications to transgender women agree that this far more significant risk is worth the benefits you gain. So why is it unacceptable for a transgender man who does not yet want T, but wants to stop his periods to make a similar decision? And if he is interested in more information about that rarely used option.... well he can click the link that is provided. However it is not necessary to clutter an already OVER LARGE article with details of infrequent side effects of of a medicine that is rarely used in transgender men in the first place.

WiccaIrish: “Or that one of those women as a matter of fact has a medical degree or that we haven't researched the studies ourselves thoroughly?”

Well, if you had researched the topic yourself, you would be quite familiar with the standards of care in women's health with regard to contraceptive care. And that standard say NOTHING AT ALL about giving an oral trial before using Depo. It. Is. Not. Done. That. Way. By. People. Who. Actually. Provide. Contraceptive. Care. To. Women.

Its like you are saying: “No one should ever prescribe an anti-inflammatory medication without first checking for renal function, because NSAIDs can worsen pre-existing renal insufficiently.” Well, yes, NSAIDs can rarely worsen pre-existing renal disease, but sorry, no one checks a blood test before they give you a dose of motrin for a sprianed ankle. Nor should they! That is simply not the way the medicine is prescribed just as giving oral medications is not done before giving a first Depo shot.

WiccaIrish: “I would hate for a young transguy to look at this article and wind up taking this medication without having read up on any of its very potential serious side effects and taking it lightly.”

Oh, you mean like the 50% of transgender women who would take way too much estrogen if they could get their hands on it? In my experience treating both transgender women and men, the women are FAR more willing to ignore or disregard the side effects of hormonal therapy than guys. So your concern is quite misplaced. I have to force feed it to the women, but the guys tend to come in with the Depo-T package insert and ask me what is the exact risk of developing terminal nose warts if they take T, and would it be less if they took only 50mg a week instead of 75mg. I have NEVER had a transwoman even question me if I wanted to up her E dose, while I would say that about a third of the time when I want to titrate up T dose towards full dose in a transman he prefers to go more slowly.

“It's common sense that if many of both trans and natal women are having horrible side effects from MPA, it would affect transmen as well.”

Sure, but Depo DOESN'T have any adverse effects in most cisgender women. I have given a shitload of the stuff and have never seen anything worse than occasionally some increase bleeding in the first 3 month cycle. MOST cisgender women who take it have no problems with it. And that is also the experience of most women's health providers.

However, as I offered to BlueGreen: if you can come up with a single reference from a reliable clinical source (ex: planned parenthood, the FDA prescribing info, the American College of OB/Gyn, etc) that says an oral agent should be used (as you have said) before prescribing Depo-Provera to a cisgender woman, I will not only eat my hat and say you have a point, but I will also be interested to read that information.

However, don't expect me to ignore the clinical guidance of PP, the FDA, and ACOG just because you and your friends think we should do it your way. Nor is it appropriate that the standards of care established by these organizations who have provided care to millions of women for decades to be disregarded because you think is should be done a different way. No amount of anecdotal evidence will change this. Because the plural of anecdote is not data.NickGorton 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick: "Like I said, EVERY medication, and in fact every treatment we offer has potential side effects."

Nick, I already know this and that wasn't my point. It's like teaching first grade math to an engineer, I know. It wasn't even my point solely on just how extreme the side effect could be, but rather the high incidence of severe depression (in particular) that has lead to suicides or hospitalizations. It is actually not at all uncommon for a transwoman to know plenty of other transwomen who have had or has a friend that experienced severe side effects from MPA. I've come across one OB/GYN who was perplexed why patients, who happened to be on MPA, had such bad mood disturbances. It is the *incidence*, the *frequency* honey. *Not* merely because it has *possible* severe side effects. -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, quote that high incidence of mood disturbance. You quote your evidence, I will quote mine:

• MPA actually resulted in a statistically significant decrease in depression and anxiety.
• Again, MPA has the lower risk of depression.
• Hmmm... increasing ESTROGEN worsens mood symptoms.
• Hey, DMPA also gets improved compliance - which is a critical aspect of a good contraceptive method.
• Helps fibroids too.
• And here in fact is a synopsis from CMAJ that discusses the whole bone density issue... and describes the RARE side effects Depo as mood changes.

So in the interests of showing how this is NPOV, how about showing some data from the medical primary or secondary literature that shows that mood disorder is a side effect that has high incidence. And please make it actual parts of the medical literature. Not the popular literature, or your friends' anecdotal experiences. -- NickGorton 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: This is where the argument we're having is drawing to a close, Nick. Anyone who is internet savvy can pull up PubMed and selectively choose the studies that support their position. I refuse to sit in front of a computer picking and choosing studies in that way, mostly based on the fact that typing in MPA in the search field results in over six thousand studies. Now, using PubMed and relying on scientific studies is fine and commendable. When reading the studies you provided, I couldn't help but notice seeing, "Previous studies have indicated that the addition of progestins during sequential hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) causes negative mood and physical symptoms." I'm sure one does not have to point out that a well done study can come out one year indicating one thing and then another well done study the next year indicating the opposite, just goes back and forth. Admittedly, you are very correct when you came to the conclusion that a lot of my argument rested upon anecdotal evidence (which is massive, but oh well). Although you would never believe it, but I am a pretty skeptical and critical thinking person. I am not the gullible type. Neither are certain members of the group I frequent, some of whom I've come to admire and respect. Which isn't easy to achieve. It'd be a stretch though to call them "friends." This is not an urban legend floating around among the transwomen groups.

No. Answer the question. If it is so easy, then you show me ONE study that shows "the high incidence of severe depression (in particular) that has lead to suicides or hospitalizations." That last is a direct quote from you. If it is NPOV, then it should be easy to find at least one paper for someone who is internet savvy.

Except that we both know you can't because that statement is not in the medical literature. And this is because there is not a "high incidence of severe depression (in particular) that has lead to suicides or hospitalizations." There is a very small incidence of some worsening mood symptoms.

But hey, why not spend five minutes on PubMed and find me that study... then it will be very easy for you to prove me wrong and make this article NPOV. G'head. Lemme have it. Show me one study that demonstrates a “high incidence of severe depression” and you will easily win this argument. -- NickGorton 20:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: Is this what it is to you? "Winning" an argument? This is not ego therapy. I never even asked for any specific statement to be inserted in the article in the first place. It was my intention discussing this first, however, before even suggesting what exactly could be said there, if any thing. That section is better left up to you, Nick. I'm not going to insert a statement against the wishes of others. Now as for citing a study, I thought I already gave you the answer. Anecdotal evidence, and you already have given your opinion of that twice now. This is exactly why I said "this is where the argument we're having is drawing to a close." There's no use in discussing something with someone who backs their argument on studies when all you have is anecdotal evidence. But when you keep seeing a pattern you just can't ignore that. However, I don't blame you, Nick. I can do the same song and dance. If I was not seeing this pattern I'd be just as skeptical of it as you, dismiss it, and label it an "urban legend." -- WiccaIrish 08:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you ask what the big deal is over Depo-Provera and whether one should try an oral trial before injecting a depot at the group, email me for the web address. You may be able to educate some people. If you have the studies and the arguments to back up your claim that it is fine to inject a depot first, you just may be able to persuade people there to reconsider. Until you or someone else is able to do that, among transsexual women MPA will remain as being regarded as very risky and that an oral trial is best before depot. Or you can continue to see what you claim to be nonsense and I will continue to advise those that post to that group or message me to choose other progestogens over MPA or at least try an oral trial first. We routinely advise that if a physician or endocrinologist is not willing to work with you and insists on you taking Premarin and/or Provera to fire his arse. -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick: "You are trying to vilify a drug that is no worse and no better than many other drugs that we use" ... "Not all transgender men are ready for or even want androgens, but they may be very disturbed by having periods. So this may represent a benefit for them that outweighs the risk. Just as the benefit of not having a headache is worth the risk of taking a motrin for me."

I've taken Accutane, Androcur, and currently take Paxil. Do you honestly think I'd advocate the ban of a drug with *rare* severe side effects? I have never once during our discussion expressed a wish that MPA would be banned. I fully agree that MPA should be an option for transmen, just as long as they have not experienced side effects on the oral form. -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

So now in addition to knowing better than ACOG, Planned Parenthood, etc, you also want to tell the FDA what to do so that the only FDA approved use of Depo is in women who have been on the oral forms. Um.... OK. Thanks. Why don't you get off a little note to Commissioner Crawford about that? -- NickGorton 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: Do you truly follow so-and-so organization's SoC to a tee? Do you believe that a patient should be armed with knowledge instead of blindly following doctor's orders? I highly doubt Crawford, or Les, would care to listen to the experiences of transsexuals. -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. However, when EVERY SINGLE major organization that provides contraceptive care to women agrees on something about contraceptive care, that's a pretty strong argument. However, we aren't talking about what I may choose to do with a specific patient. This is about what information should be in an encyclopedia entry that should be NPOV. And pretty much if every professional organization in the field agrees that Depo should be administered without an initial oral trial of medications, I think that is what should be listed... that is the accepted standard of care.NickGorton 20:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick: "Well, if you had researched the topic yourself, you would be quite familiar with the standards of care in women's health with regard to contraceptive care. And that standard say NOTHING AT ALL about giving an oral trial before using Depo. It. Is. Not. Done. That. Way. By. People. Who. Actually. Provide. Contraceptive. Care. To. Women."

I'm sure that they don't and that's a shame, too. I am sure that in the future they will take heed that an oral trial is best before going depot. -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, why not run that by Les over at the FDA? If he's good with it.... or if that becomes the standard of care and treatment, I'll be happy to say it belongs in this article. -- NickGorton 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: read the above response. -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick: "Oh, you mean like the 50% of transgender women who would take way too much estrogen if they could get their hands on it? In my experience treating both transgender women and men, the women are FAR more willing to ignore or disregard the side effects of hormonal therapy than guys."

Actually, I'd believe it. But it depends on which estrogen, progestogen, or anti-androgen you are referring to. Premarin, MPA, ethinyl estradiol, estradiol cypionate, cyproterone acetate, spironolactone, nilutamide, bicalutimide, or flutamide. These can certainly be abused and lead to severe side effects quite easily. 17-beta estradiol or estradiol valerate take a lot more to abuse. It also depends on what you consider to be "way too much," frequency of administration, and route of admin (particularly whether IM, orally, or, in the case of 17b-estradiol and EV, sublingually/buccally). -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've had a patient get venous thrombotic disease with the 'recomended dose' of delestrogen (in transgender women.) And the only formulation with a demonstrably lower risk at the high doses transwomen take is transdermal. -- NickGorton 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: Did she have a family history of clotting disorders? Did she have a blood clot or stroke previously, over the age of 35, overweight, smoked, sedentary lifestyle? What was the dosage and frequency of EV IM admin? How do you know if she wasn't taking Premarin behind your back? Please elaborate. One case I know of (a healthy 50 yr old transwoman) who took 40mg EV IM q/week wound up with a blood clot, although she was sneaking Provera and Prometrium without his knowledge. Also, around this time she decided to take a 5,000 mile road trip across country. -- WiccaIrish 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

None of the other elements of Virchow's Triad were present. It was the Estrogen. And if you somehow have in your head that high dose IM estrogen is safe and does not cause thromboembolic disease in normal healthy people, you are not only mistaken, but in this case dangerous. People choosing to take high dose estrogens by any route - even the safest - transdermal are placing themselves at considerable risk. They must make this as an informed decision, and you are providing misinformation that AT BEST could be described as original research, at worst, wishful thinking. -- NickGorton 20:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: No Nick, I never said IM (or even transdermal, for matter) was without risk. Please do not assume what I was/am thinking. -- WiccaIrish 08:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick: "And lastly, any estrogen at doses given to pre-op transgender women is FAR FAR FAR FAR riskier than taking a Depo-Shot."

Now this is just flat out wrong, Nick. What I said above goes for this as well, please specify.

You have got to be kidding me. The doses that pre-op transgender women take of estrogen are quite honestly, dangerous. The more estrogen you take, the greater the risk of thromboembolic disease. The risk of thromboembolic disease is twenty times... not twenty percent, twenty TIMES greater in transgender women on estrogen than in the general population. (Van Kesteren P, et al. “Mortality and morbidity in transsexual subjects treated with cross-sex hormones.” Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 47(3):337-42. 1997.)

That said, the risk, while significant, is still worth the benefit in transgender women. Hell, I prescribe the stuff! However, I do that knowing, and with my patients knowing that it is a significant risk. And I can assure you, I wouldn't be giving Depo to my patients if it caused a twenty fold increase in life threatening complications. -- NickGorton 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: Hold on there. Which estrogen, route, frequency, etc., etc. Please elaborate before making sweeping generalizations. As for the study you cite, I could not find the full article online and only read the abstract. It says oral estrogens and anti-androgens. Premarin? Ethinyl estradiol? 17b-estradiol? EV? And which anti-androgens? Cyproterone acetate? I am sure you are aware that Premarin and ethinyl estradiol are much stronger than 17b-estradiol and its prodrug estradiol valerate. Most of these studies on transsexuals used either Premarin or ethinyl estradiol. Premarin comes from pregnant mare urine and contains 200 different hormones but it is the horse estrogens equilin and 17-dihydroequilenin that are useful for feminization. Almost half of Premarin contains estrone, a quarter of it contains equilin, and about an eighth of it is 17-dihydroequilenin. Equilin is approximately 10 times stronger than 17-beta estradiol. Ethinyl estradiol, a synthetic analog of 17-beta estradiol, is 20 times stronger than 17b-estradiol and has a longer half-life. Both have fallen out of favor. When cyproterone acetate is added to either ethinyl estradiol or Premarin, you're asking for trouble. It has been shown that the combination of EE and CPA increases the chances for a DVT substantially.

Furthermore, when estrogen is taken orally (sublingually/buccally count here too, as some small amount of the tablet will be swallowed), the estrogen that goes through the digestive system is mostly destroyed by digestive acids, reducing the bioavailability of the med, and blood flow from the GI tract through the portal vein into the hepatic system result in enzyme clotting factors to be produced by the liver. So, even taking 17b-estradiol and estradiol valerate orally is also discouraged. Sublingual and buccal admin is preferable.

However, intramuscular and transdermal admin of estradiol valerate (IM) or 17b-estradiol (TD) is much, much safer. When taking the IM route, what needs to be checked periodically is prolactin levels to watch for hyperprolactinemia which can potentially result in a prolactinoma. EV injections are generally pretty safe, even at high dosages. Prostate cancer patients injected with very high dosages of esterified bio-identical estrogen (up to 320mg monthly) were found to suffer from no liver, thrombotic, or cardiovascular complications. Course, I don't recommend anything near 320mg q/month. The only advantage oral admin has over IM admin is, that if you do develop a DVT, you detox faster from orals due to their shorter half-life in your system, i.e., you will have less estrogen in your system faster when you use oral admin than IM, and that makes treatment of a DVT more immediately effective. Now think of MPA as a depot. -- WiccaIrish 05:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read the article in its entirety. It is the single most well done epidemiological study in the english language literature about transgender people. It enrolled over a thousand trans patients spanning over ten thousand patient years of life. It is the signal paper discussing what we have been talking about. The fact that you have just found it now and have only read it in abstract tells me that you pretty much have no idea what the literature says about this because you simply have not read any of it. Anyone who has spent even a modicum of time reading the literature on this would not only be aware of Van Kesteren's article, but also the fact that there is a great deal of evidence that while transdermal estrogen is the least risky, all forms of estrogen given at high doses can cause thromboembolic disease in much higher percentages.

But talking about the literature regarding treating transgender people without having already read this article would be like discussing the history of x-ray crystallography but not knowing who that Linus Pauling dude was. -- NickGorton 20:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: I never said I had not read the study before, I did not recognise it at the time until reading the full text. I am familiar with the studies from the Netherlands. Transdermal is certainly the safest, but I would maintain that IM is the second best option. I never said that IM and transdermal carried no risk. Again, do not assume. -- WiccaIrish 08:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Studies continue to find no benefit that outweighs the risks of taking it.

Really? You ever watched a thirteen year old give birth because she didn't think that you could get pregnant the first time you had sex and then hid the pregnancy until she was too late to get an elective termination? Have you ever had to tell a sixteen year old whose biggest worry thus far was what to wear to her Junior Prom that she was knocked up? Ever seen a freaking VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarian) on a fifteen year old? No? Well guess what, I have. So don't get on your high horse and decide that for these young women you know best that there is NO BENEFIT that outweighs your estimation of the risk of having their childhood destroyed by an unintended pregnancy. Don't assume that because you see no benefit to avoiding teenaged motherhood that they shouldn't have access to what is probably the overall best, safest, and most effective contraception for sexually active adolescent girls.

I'm sorry, but that statement takes the goddamned cake. Tell you what, WiccaIrish, when you get a freaking uterus transplant an you can get pregnant, THEN we'll let you have a say in what is best for a fertile young woman's choice for contraception. Until then, why not let them have a say in their own contraceptive choices without your irrational fearmongering that is unsupported by the research literature or the standard of practice. -- NickGorton 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: Contraception wasn't even the subject I was dealing with or even thinking about. It is so typical of someone to say until you are X you shouldn't say anything on X. I'm sorry Nick, but that response was based purely on emotion. -- WiccaIrish 07:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well guess what, contraception is not only the only instance where there are any studies to quote, but it is also MOST GERMANE to the topic in the article - that is giving the drug to transgender men - which would be physiologically identical to giving it to cisgender women.

No where in that actual article did I ever suggest using Depo for transgender women. It was only for transmen. However you then went on an original research tirade about how horrible the drug was and should only be given in depot form to people who's trialed the oral form first.

Because the only research that exists at all is in female bodied people. If you were talking about it exclusively in transgender women, then it does not belong in an encyclopedia article anyway because there is no research to support that claim except your anecdotal evidence. And we know what the plural of anecdote is? Not data.

However, you were talking about it in the context of all usage of the drug (remember all those comments we had about planned parenthood and ACOG? You do realize that PP and ACOG primarily treat cisgender women? Remember all those sources you cited... you do realize that all of the research was in cisgender women?) Given that, your comments as I described above were over the line, dangerous, and simply disregarding the needs and usage of the drug in anyone but transgender women. However, as Alex said, that is pretty typical. -- NickGorton 20:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: If a teenage girl is not reliable taking pills then of course she should be put on Depo-Provera. However, I was addressing transsexuals (both transmen and transwomen) and I may even extend that to adult natal women. Both you and Alex's, seemingly, prejudice against transgender women is disturbing. I would hate to be in the presence of someone who harbored such prejudice. Although I'd never extrapolate this behavior, or mindset, to all transmen. I'm better than that. In light of everything you've said on this page, whether addressed to me or not, I do not blame some others (with the exception of certain ones) here (on Wikipedia) who refuse to calmly discuss anything with you due to how confrontational you appear to be and then the vulgarity. Also, the telepathy here is amazing. However, it has certainly been an interesting discussion. -- WiccaIrish 08:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"In summary, the WHI study monitored three groups of postmenopausal women who were taking either a placebo (containing no hormones), Premarin® (conjugated equine estrogens), or PremPro® (conjugated equine estrogens/medroxyprogesterone). The study data indicated that the PremPro® group had a higher than normal incidence of blood clotting, breast cancer, and cardiovascular events. Because of the increased risks, the investigators stopped this portion of the study early." -- http://www.womensinternational.com/pdf/WHI_FAQs.pdf

"In 2002 a long-term study showed that women using one type of combined HRT (PremPro) had an increased risk of breast cancer, heart problems, stroke, blood clots and gall bladder disease. The women using combined HRT also had a decreased risk of colorectal cancer and hip fracture. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of combined HRT on the development of dementia, ovarian cancer, mortality from breast cancer, mortality from cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality." -- http://www.hillhealth.com/topics/menopause.htm

"A. When it reviewed the study data in May 2002, the WHI Data and Safety Monitoring Board saw an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking estrogen plus progestin. The Board also saw that the previously identified risks for heart attacks, strokes and blood clots to the lungs and legs had persisted. Therefore, in the judgment of the Board, the overall risks outweighed the benefits of taking estrogen plus progestin." -- http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/women/q_a.htm

What progestin did they use in the study? Medroxyprogesterone acetate. -- WiccaIrish 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In summary, why don't you read the goddamned report itself. And the HERS trial while you are at it. When you do, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.NickGorton 08:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

And let me add to that, you need to read Van Kesteren's paper as well before you try to write an encyclopedia entry that is supposed to be based on the primary and secondary sources - of which Van Kesteren's paper is a huge part. -- NickGorton 20:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"Puttering around in a Yugo": Nick Gorton's hateful sexism

Reality check: Nick Gorton is a self-hating woman who promotes the worst sexist stereotypes. She claims to be a "male trapped in a woman's body," but in fact, she's a woman who pretends to be a male chauvinist. According to this bigot, the female sex drive is like "puttering around in a Yugo" (compared to the male's Ferrari). What could be more bigoted, inaccurate, and dismissive of the female sex than that drivel? It is that sort of nonsense that is used to justify practices like female genital mutilation. After all, if women aren't sexual, they won't miss their sex organs so much will they? But I know for a fact that women are just as sexual as men -- we have powerful drives, and bigotry like Nick's needs to be countered with the truth. It is well established that healthy women have powerful sexual urges, a wide range of sexual desires, with an intensity no less than men's. Nick's denial of female sexuality is no less hateful and spurious than denial of the Holocaust. Her arguments for male supremacy (in sex drive, in mathematical/scientific intelligence, etc.) are no more accurate than racist arguments for white supremacy. Just like her racist friends, she promotes pseudoscience to back up her sexist beliefs. She is a doctor alright, in the vein of Dr. Mengele. Nick has mentioned Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Wierd Things." Interesting, since objective scientists reject Nick's bigoted belief that the female sexuality is like "puttering around in a Yugo." The sexist pseudoscientists who agree with Nick tend also to be racist, patron saints of bigotry. So why does Nick believe that sex is a guy thing, that women are innately less sexual than men? Because she's a self-hating woman who apes every male chauvinist out there. She's like a Jew who denies the Holocaust. Nick doesn't think much, but the bigot does think, she thinks Wikipedia is Bigot Central where she can promote her disgusting drivel unchallenged. We say: THINK AGAIN! --AR

OK, Number one: sign your edits. AR is not a username that is registered.

Number two, when you add comments, it is appropriate to put them at the bottom of the page.

Number three, while you may post your ad hominems (though they will generally get you ignored) here, and even on my talk page (though I will delete them unless you actually sign them) do not vandalize my user page. If you have a comment for me, make it in the appropriate place. Though try not to be so repetitive... its tiresome to read the exact same ignorant rants in three different places.

Number four, writing an obviously transphobic rant and in it calling me sexist reveals you for the histrionic unthinking troll that you are. Its exactly people like you who make tragedies like Brandon Teena and Gwen Araujo common. But then I assume you would refer to those two victims of transphobic bigots like your self as Teena and Eddie. So fortunately I don't need to make any further comments to negate yours. You've done a fine job of that yourself.NickGorton 15:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

We also had this non-debate already, and there can be no reason to revive it. -- AlexR 16:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I dare you to point out how exactly this is a "non-debate." To the contrary, your kneejerk refusal to debate is endemic of why the sex change industry is so sexist. Transsexuality is all-too-often about conforming to inaccurate stereotypes of "male" and "female." We can see an example in Nick Gorton's statement that female sexuality is equivalent to "puttering around in a Yugo" (compared to the male's Ferrari). How exactly does this reflect an accurate picture of the female libido? Nick calls me "transphobic," but the reality is that she is aping a male chauvinist in her inaccurate rhetoric about women. You might ask why I refer to Nick as "she." Well, Nick wants to act all "politically incorrect" by insisting women are innately far less sexual than men (all she's doing is aping every male chauvinist pundit out there -- wow, what courage!). So if Nick can say female sexuality is like "puttering around in a Yugo," I can call Nick what she is -- a woman. I wouldn't have any problem saying she's a "he" out of simple politeness. However, Nick is being anything but polite when she inaccurately stereotypes women. As a result, her right to be addressed as a "he" or "unicorn" is forfeit. A bigot does not deserve to be treated with politeness. And scientists do indeed point out that "sex reassignment" does not actually change sex. By any objective, scientific standard Nick is still a woman. PC or not, transphobic or not, this is simply fact.

It's amusing that Nick complains about "ad hominems" yet attacks me as "ignorant." Hey, Nick, guess what? I'm anything but ignorant about this issue. I'm very well read, and have a great deal of experience with trans types. In reality, your sex change industry thrives upon ignorance. Why? Because too much knowledge, too much independent thinking can lead people to question the sexist foundation of your industry. Then you have people truly think for themselves about these issues, rather than mindlessly hold to your party line. And, Nick, you want to pretend that I'm "deluded" for rejecting your stereotype of female sexuality? Well, guess what? Even AlexR has refused to back your statement that men are naturally more sexual than women. She'll vaguely imply it, but she's too ashamed to come right out and say it. Even she will not say something so contradicted by reams of real world evidence. I guess AlexR is deluded as well, by your ridiculous excuse for logic. Indeed, I guess legions of mainstream scientists are deluded, too: they sure wouldn't sign their names to your truly ignorant statement that female sexuality is like "puttering around in a Yugo" (compared to the male's Ferrari).

What's truly politically incorrect here is questioning the sexist assumptions that fuel the sex change industry. But you know what? I'd rather be factually correct any day. Studies show that transwomen tend to be much less sexual than actual, biological women. This is even mentioned in Wikipedia's Transwomen article: "Both however report that the number of transwomen who consider themselves [...] asexual is higher than it is in the general female population (at least in studies done from the 1980s on)." The alt.transgendered FAQ states that as a result of HRT in male-to-female transsexuals, after six months "The sex drive is almost totally gone." Obviously, there is widespread evidence that transwomen tend to have a lower sex drive than typical men. Now, here's where we get to the heart of this debate. In becoming much less sexual, are transwomen becoming like real women? Or are they becoming something else, something very different from actual women? Partisans of the sex change industry say the former. As a result, they must argue that actual women are naturally much less sexual than men. However, I see no evidence that this is the case. I see overwhelming evidence that healthy women have powerful sexual drives, at least as often as men do -- there's nothing unusual about it. There is nothing to validate Nick's "puttering around in a Yugo" claim about the female libido. However, it is definitely a staple male chauvinist stereotype.

It is a stereotype that, however convenient for the sex change industry, is not validated by reality. Of course, pointing this out is decidedly inconvenient for the same industry and its apologists. If this page is going to be truly NPOV, and not just some Gathering of Pimps for the Sex Change Industry, it is important that these assumptions be questioned. After all, true knowledge comes by questioning, by seeking answers. And no, I won't be satisfied by "you're a transphobic bigot." Hey, you're a sexist bigot so we're even. --Nescar9 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to inform you that the sources you rely on to maintain your argument that transsexual women are much less sexual are subpar and not to be taken seriously at all. A FAQ for a newsgroup? ::shakes head:: It is very obvious to me that you are completely ignorant regarding MtF transsexual HRT. Like I have recently added to the MtF HRT section of this article,

"Transgender women report a sometimes significant reduction in libido, all depending upon the dosage of anti-androgens. A small number of post-operative transsexual women may take small amounts of testosterone to boost the libido. Many pre-operative transsexual women simply wait until after sex-reassignment surgery to begin an active sex life (due to how they feel towards their genitals and/or an aversion to anal sex) and for post-operative transsexual women how satisfied they are with the results. Progestogens can both raise one's libido and encourage female libidinal feelings."

It is not a physiological difference between transwomen and natal women but much more to do with psychological differences in how one views their own genitals and sex in general. Obviously, if you were born with the wrong genitals and were forced to experience high levels of testosterone during puberty that can lead to all sorts of unwanted, shameful, and embarrasing thoughts and actions you would come away with quite a different viewpoint. Also to be considered are the men who have "a thing" for transsexual women (both pre-, non-, and post-operative) that actually think we'd do the things that are shown on "she-male" pornography websites. Almost all transsexual women want the sex drive reduced significantly, and reasons for this are psychological. We are not becoming "something else."

If you take a real close look at the male and female anatomies, the only real difference is the presense of the uterus in the female; the rest are structure placement differences, all the tissues are basically the same, just programmed by our genes to develop in different ways. If a MtF was allowed to start effective levels of HRT prior to the onset of male puberty and SRS was not performed in the interim, by age twenty the only observable physical differences would be in the genital region, everything else would be "obviously" female, from cranial development on down, with everything comparable to the natal females in the family. Male and female reproductive organs and genitals both arise from the same tissue. By default, the main pathway is the female. But only when the tiny and practically empty Y chromosome is present, does the embryo take the male divergent path. The only difference is hormones and it's triggered by a single region on the Y chromosome. We, transsexual women, are born psychologically and neurologically female (having discovered through brain studies that no other researchers have even attempted to counter, unlike certain studies concerning sexual orientation and even those counter studies have their weaknesses as well). Hormones make us biochemically and mostly anatomically (particularly in the way of dermal, adipose, and muscular tissue) female, and tend to develop diseases/disorders that tend occur in females (due to our biochemical makeup) save for the obvious (uterine, ovarian, cervical, etc., cancers).

One would think that transsexual men and women would have a unique perspective and take on this matter.

Furthermore, spitefully using the wrong pronouns when referring to a transsexual person is extremely rude and hurtful. This "stereotype" you speak of is simply not comparable. It is as hurtful to us as it is hurtful to an African-American being called "nigger." -- WiccaIrish 02:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know your new alias Angela.

WiccaIrish, she has one basic underlying issue: she is very insecure and her sense of self as a woman is deeply threatened by the entire idea of transgender people. And like the racist bigot who makes himself feel better by calling people of color 'nigger', Angela makes herself feel better by calling you a man, and Alex and I women. Kinda sad, but as long as she doesn't start her NPOV transphobic editing nonsense of the transgender articles again, she can call me a woman and my partner a 'nigger' all she wants. You are worth arguing with... she is just an interesting somewhat psychotic annoyance like Fred Phelps.NickGorton 08:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen any actual scientist acknowledge that 'transwomen' are real women. Why? Because they are biological men. Despite the pseudo-science you cite, no chemicals actually transform a biological male into a female. There are NO studies which demonstrate that 'transwomen' are actual women. Likewise, there are people who believe they are elephants trapped in human bodies. Will I address them as elephants? Sure, if they're polite to me, and that's what they really want, I'll give them that courtesy. So as you can see, I have no problem being polite with transfolk - but only if that politeness is reciprocated. When Nick spins her sexist lies about women, such as the "puttering around in a Yugo" BS about female sexuality, that is NOT being polite. Sexist lies are NOT in any sense polite - ever. So she will receive no courtesy from me, because she deserves none. The African-American/"nigger" analogy has no merit; "nigger" has no scientific basis, while Nick Gorton being a "she" is accepted by scientists. As for Fred Phelps, well hey Gorton, you're the one who agrees with him that women are sexually weaker than men, are innately less aggressive, and less intelligent at math and science! WiccaIrish, do you agree with Nick Gorton that women are less sexual than men? I ask because this myth is a common staple of the sex change industry, and one contradicted by everything I actually experience in life. You mentioned that 'transwomen' do not behave like the shemales in movies do. The problem is that I personally know 'transwomen' who ENJOY having the 'best of both worlds'. And there are plenty of pornos made for fun rather than money -- or for both fun and money. Shemale pornos are no exception -- some of them are completely real. And except for cartoons and such, shemale porn features REAL transwomen -- like you, they are biological males who stepped outside the societally prescribed gender boundaries. So yes, there are all sorts of 'chicks with dicks' who like being called that, and enjoy doing all the things you can see in the shemale movies. To deny this would be a real act of bigotry -- after all, not everyone fits into the rigid molds you expect them to. There are people who consider themselves BOTH male and female, as shemale, as a third gender, etc.; I presume you'd probably call them freaks. Who's transphobic now? Yet you expect people to treat YOU with politeness! Hell, there are plenty of REAL women who do all the things you see in pornos -- despite your stereotypes, women can get very naughty indeed. You probably agree with Nick that women are essentially asexual June Cleaver clones who don't do anything sexually interesting unless they are paid or forced to do so. Newsflash: I KNOW otherwise. Many real, genuine, genetic women are having fun in porn -- simply having an exciting time. There's a lot of homemade porn, etc. made just for fun, in fact, with no scripting, nothing fake about it. So even though you think you're a woman, you're actually a man who is conforming to inane STEREOTYPES of what you THINK women are like. My sex life is just as interesting as anything you'd see in a porno. And I'm a real woman, a pro-sex feminist rather than a sexist male pretending to be a 'she'. Come to think of it, your clear anti-porn leaning often accompanies a general anti-sex mentality. So do you accept the stereotype that women are innately less sexually driven than men? You write that "Almost all transsexual women want the sex drive reduced significantly, and reasons for this are psychological. We are not becoming 'something else.'" Yet if your sex drive is reduced significantly, then you ARE becoming something very unlike a real woman. Why? Because healthy real women have sex drives just as strong as men's, if not stronger. You are becoming a man who has been chemically and cosmetically altered into a facsimile of femininity; a stereotypical pseudo-woman. You are NOT a real woman; you are just a man with an artificially low sex drive and clearly an equally low opinion of real women. You never stopped to ask yourself whether 'female hormones' would have the same effect on your adult male body as they do on a genuine female's. You never paused to wonder whether your male body requires different testosterone levels compared to a woman's in order to achieve the same level of sex drive. After all, one of the cardinal beliefs of the sex change industry is that men and women are significantly different -- right? So why do you consider these differences only when they favor your delusions? You know, if I loved stereotypes as much as you do, I'd call that typical male arrogance! So I will ask you again: Do you believe that as a sex, males have a higher sex drive than females? As a wannabe male chauvinist, Ms. Gorton does. Do you? Yes or no? --Nescar9 02:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Never seen an actual scientist state that? OK, Angela, here you go: female to male transgender people are males and male to female transgender people are females. Since I am someone who easily meets the definition of a scientist (a person who has completed post-doctoral level education in a scientific discipline, is published and lectures in the field, of course additionally being a licensed clinician... you know, like those people that teach your classes?) I will be more than happy to help you out here, kiddo. And now you have heard a scientist say that. So run along now.

You obviously have way too much time on your hands now that school is out for the summer.NickGorton 04:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me clarify: I've never seen an objective scientist (as opposed to a biased pimp for the sex change industry, such as yourself) make such a claim. Remember, you've also compared the female sex drive to "puttering around in a Yugo" (compared to the male's Ferrari), which already revealed you to be sexist scum rather than an objective scientist.--Nescar9 03:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish wrote: "Obviously, if you were born with the wrong genitals and were forced to experience high levels of testosterone during puberty that can lead to all sorts of unwanted, shameful, and embarrasing thoughts and actions you would come away with quite a different viewpoint." EXCUSE ME? Shameful and embarrassing? Looks like you're another sexist- who thinks women are sexually boring-by-nature. Just a [edited out hateful words], that's what you are. Look, [edited out hateful word]: I know women who get off on sadistic nasty gay porn. I know lesbians who get off on cutting each other and drinking the blood. I know women who are sexually aroused by whipping, beating, tormenting, defecating upon, and otherwise abusing other women. I know women who who variously get off on getting choked, getting pissed on, fantasy rape, gang bangs, among many other kinky things, and/or doing the same to others. You clearly think men are 'more perverted' because they have higher testosterone, and now you're becoming a 'proper lady' with your so-called sex reassignment. Bulls**t! Women are just as 'perverted' as men, and I know this from experience! The hormones don't make you female, since you have a body that is biologically MALE on every level. Regardless of what gender quacks who work for the biz say, no 'sex change' will ever make you a real female. The 'female hormones' do not have the same effect on a male brain and body as on a female. You are not becoming a woman, you are becoming a fictitious STEREOTYPE! -- Obisha 3:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says to Obisha/Nescar/Angela: LOL. Your excused. I find this hilarious actually. On a board over at AOL just about two weeks ago I was defending pornography, how ironic. I am WELL AWARE of the fact that it is a stereotype that women are somehow significantly less sexual than men. I am WELL AWARE that there are women in porn that choose that path and claim to have never been abused. I already know the "homemade porn" bit, I already know that there are transwomen who choose that path (not even to make money for hormones or surgery). I've seen all kinds of extreme pornography. However, you also have to take into consideration sexual abuse in childhood and sex addiction. Like I said, it has to do with psychological differences. Transwomen have had to go through being born into the wrong body and then having to go through a puberty you hate. Shameful and embarrasing thoughts? I personally do not feel that they are, however, many other transwomen do. Perhaps it is because transwomen have been duped into believing that it is "male" to have a high libido. But because you are not a transsexual woman you would not understand what we feel, think, or go through. Transwomen have every right to feel as they do, whether you like it or not.

Did you know I admire Victoria Woodhull? That I detest the June Cleaver and Donna Reed stereotype? That I wear jeans and not dresses? You really painted yourself into a corner that time. I think Nick pegged you quite nicely as possibly a young woman who has taken Women's studies (with, perhaps, emotional issues).

Now, as for your transphobia. There is scientific evidence (Swaab, et al.) to back up the fact that there is a particular area in the brain (BSTc) of transsexual women that matches that of natal women much more than it does natal or trans men's brains. Of course, more studies need to be done on this. That is not pseudo-science. The brain does have estrogen receptors (both alpha and beta). And as far as I know there is absolutely no difference between natal females' and natal males' estrogen receptors. From anecdotal evidence, cisgendered males (such as those who have prostatic cancer) placed on estrogen do not respond well psychologically. They claim that they experience a vague feeling that "something isn't right." But transsexual women never report that feeling. Most transwomen show atypical gender behavior early on in childhood. For me, that was true. So no, it comes naturally to us. We don't "copy" some stereotype unless the transwoman had to build a facade most of their life in order to be accepted by family, friends, and society. I wonder how you think of XY, XO, XXX, AIS, CAIS, and other intersex women. -- WiccaIrish 09:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Like I said Angela, as long as you keep your vitriol out of the actual article, you are free to vent yourself here. By virtue of the fact that you make no real contributions except your for your childish transphobic taunts, you will cause no problems here simply because no one would actually take you seriously after reading two lines of your comments. Nor will this change simply if you get another sockpuppet as your unique personality shines through regardless of the name you choose. Though I must admit, I do like the sound of that... 'biased pimp for the sex change industry'. I may have to use that on a business card or something.NickGorton 04:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No real contributions? I point out the fact that objective scientists and real-world experience make a mockery of your sexist views of female sexuality. I point out that your sexist "puttering around in a Yugo" nonsense is refuted by my OWN real-world experience. I point out that the sex change industry THRIVES upon your sort of ridiculous sexist stereotypes. Not only do lots of people take my comments seriously, I'm on the phone now with a colleague who agrees wholeheartedly with my views. In fact, she's seriously considering posting some thoughts here. I've read/heard these very same opinions from many, many people. But go ahead, keep telling yourself that I'm the only one who sees through your sexist nonsense.--Nescar9 03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, Angela, if you'd like to keep ranting on talk pages and baiting people with your transphobic scree, fine. No one listens and it changes nothing important about the content. However, when you and your 'colleagues' in your little undergrad clique spend your time [vandalizing pages] on Wikipedia, it just demonstrates even more that you are not even close to being the grown-ups you wish to seem. Why, you may as well just call me a stinky-poo-poo-head and have done with it.NickGorton 07:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Angela and co's comments do intrigue me though they do seem overly confrontational at times. Then again maybe the other side is too. Nick I am curious you said you first heard the Yugo comment from a transwoman right? Is this transwoman online? I'd like to ask her what she meant by that. Cause I know lots of women who wear out their husbands or boyfriends in bed & so on. Angela has a point that there is lots in this world to call into question the Yugo quote. -LLCobb

I had three original points. The first was the comment by a friend who said that after she began taking HRT it felt like going from driving a Jag to a Yugo. The second was that my experience (and the nearly universal experience of transmen when taking HRT) is that the opposite occurs. The third was that this is reflected both in the evidence that on average the female sex drive is lower than male, as well as the experience of many (but not all) individuals in society that bears this out. Now this is not to say that there are not women with a high sex drive or men with a low one, just that these two overlapping bell curves have different means. This is just the same as saying that men are on average stronger than women. That does not mean that an individual woman cannot be stronger than an individual male, but rather recognizes that there is on average a difference. Of course there will be some relationships where the woman will have a higher sex drive than her male partner, just as there are some relationships where women are taller or stronger than their male partner!

In addition, recognizing that there are differences between two populations does not necessarily imply the value judgment that Angela ascribes to it. This would be like calling me a racist if I said that the average income of people of color in the US is lower than that of the white population. That is a simple fact. What would be racist would be to say that the reason that this exists is an inherent superiority of whites.

However,while I made a statement of fact that on average the male sex drive is higher than the female, if anyone, it was Angela that weighted the value judgments on this difference. A few sources for my comments are:

• Baumeister R, et al. “Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence.” Personality and Social Psychology Review.” 5(3):242-273. 2001.
• Leiblum S. "Reconsidering gender differences in sexual desire: an update." Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 17(1):57-68. 2002. and
• Peplau L. “Human sexuality: how do men and women differ?” Current Directions in Psychological Research. 12(2):37. 2003.

This is just not something on which there is even much scientific debate. It is empirical knowledge. For example, from the abstract of the 2001 review above: “The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive. The gender difference in sex drive should not be generalized to other constructs such as sexual or orgasmic capacity, enjoyment of sex, or extrinsically motivated sex.”

Stating that on average women have a lower sex drive than men is not a value judgment for or against any woman or women as a whole. Hell, for what it is worth, I would think this is an active negative for men! However, Angela's response to this as well as her misrepresentation of my points have certainly led to your quite understandable misunderstanding of my points. That is, I would challenge you to find one instance where I said anything that at all implied a value judgment to this fact. You can however, find a great number of instances where Angela makes such judgments (i.e. that it can't be the case that women have a lower sex drive because this would imply X.)

However, Angela both took my statement of empirical knowledge as a personal affront, as well as an excuse to have a good time bashing transgender people. And as both I and WiccaIrish indicated, addressing a transgender person by the inappropriate pronoun is the equivalent of calling a person of color a 'nigger.' Of course when someone does this without intent, it is pretty unreasonable to attack them for simply misunderstanding. However, when someone does this with full intent and a disregard for an individuals' right to self-identify (with regards to gender identity as well as other personal identity issues,) I have no problem telling her that she is a juvenile bigot who has her head up her ass.NickGorton 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanx Nick for the answer in detail. I don't despise you for your opinions as Angela seems to. With respect though I must disagree that they are fact. As is obvious you are right that many scientists agree with your position. Where you go wrong is saying "This is just not something on which there is even much scientific debate. It is empirical knowledge." There are many scientists who disagree with your position and yes they are mainstream. First allow me to express my own critique. One reason your position may falter is in the difference between appearance and actuality of sex drive. It is well known and often scorned that women often use sex to get what they want. Many paths to power are far less accessible for women than for men. Often women compensate by using sex as a bargaining chip. As any economist knows anything given too cheaply let alone freely will fast lose value. So in order to keep getting leverage with sex women must exercise self control. There is also social control in the form of taboos. There is social pressure especially from other women often expressed with infamous words of non-endearment such as slut or skank. It is no secret that female promiscuity is less accepted and more taboo than male promiscuity. If women are less horny than men why would these greater taboos be needed to begin with? Taboos are a social mechanism for control. Female sexuality must not be so weak if it needs to be controlled in the first place. Other than leverage and taboos there are likely more factors involved. This is a complicated issue and it is a mistake to just assume that when women put out less it must be due to lower sex drive. Even if both genders are about equally horny these and other factors could lead one gender to often be less "easy".

Another problem with your position is that the so called "exceptions to the rule" may well prove fatal for the supposed rule. An assumption in studies you cite that you appear to share is that higher testosterone equals higher sex drive. The problem is that even you admit at least some women are as horny as the supposed "male average" and some women are hornier than some men. Yet as Angela points out these horny women still have many times less testosterone than the male average. The women who wear out their boyfriends or husbands have way less testosterone yet they are still more horny. This suggests that women may react different to testosterone. They may need less of it for a similar degree of horniness. Consider these implications and you may see why there are non-kook scientists who disagree with you. The studies you cite do not appear to correct for or even acknowledge these factors.

Angela has cited Men Women Sex and Darwin by Natalie Angier. This article presents a point of view shared by quite some anthropologists. It is generally quite good at making the case that the female sex drive is probably no lower than the male. Angier shares many of the critiques that I make along with many of her own. A quote: "Women are said to have lower sex drives than men yet they are universally punished if they display evidence to the contrary -- if they disobey their 'natural' inclination toward a stifled libido." The article quotes Barbara Smuts to great effect: "If female sexuality is muted compared to that of men then why must men the world over go to extreme lengths to control and contain it?" That really is a good question Nick.

Another quote I have seen Angela throw around (that I will now copy and paste):

However, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that because women have less testosterone than men do, they have lower sexual interest than their male counterparts. Instead, it seems that women detect and react to much smaller amounts of testosterone in their circulation than men do.

This is from the website for Discovery Health] which is a part of Discovery.com. So the view that women do not have less sexual interest than men is published by Discovery Health. Now you would not consider the Discovery Health channel a haven of kooks now would you? If Discovery publishes an article one can be assured it is backed by many scientists even if your opinions may differ. If your opinion were a cut and dry "fact" as you say why would a mainstream science channel say otherwise?

Another interesting study that I ran into recently:

Testosterone Levels Fail to Predict Female Sex Drive

"Efforts to pitch Testosterone Replacement Therapy as the Sexual Fountain of Youth got a sharp stick in the groin with the publication of these two studies. The first one measured testosterone and DHEA-S levels in women 45-75 and compared them with a sexual function profile. There was no correlation between low sex drive and low levels of either hormone. In the second study, testosterone replacement therapy with a patch had no effect on raising growth hormone levels or improving IGF-1 production in postmenopausal women. So if your doctor, courtesy of the pharmaceutical rep, wants to hand you a prescription for testosterone to rev up your sex drive - pass. Testosterone will only raise your bad cholesterol, grow hair on your face, raise your insulin levels and pack on the pounds, and that's not sexy!" JAMA. 2005;294:91-96. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2005 Jul;63(1):32-8.

This casts further doubt on the amount of testosterone being so determinative for the female sex drive.

I have also seen interesting studies about female "paraphilias" such as pedophilia being very underreported. Like others have said I have seen so much evidence of female "kinkiness" that contradicts the belief that women are so straightlaced. Of course there are also lots of studies showing that married women commit adultery at rates comparable to men. Fornication and pornography consumption and promiscuity are also quite common among women based on my experience and the studies I have read.

As for your comment that more sex drive would be a disadvantage well I disagree. Then again I am pro sex because I enjoy it so much. I am not exaggerating when I say my female partners enjoy it at least as much as I do.

Anyway I hope you see my point that your view is not something you "know" but rather your opinion which many disagree with. It is not unchallenged "fact" in the scientific community. If you still don't see what I mean I'll take some time out to cite more studies that back up my critique.

P.S. Is the transwoman who made the Yugo comment online? I've some questions I'd like to ask her. -- LLCobb

WiccaIrish says: You make a very good point concerning using sex as a bargaining chip and social control. Perhaps you would find this interesting, Women's Libido Just as Strong as Men's. However, I also agree with Nick on the opposite experiences of transwomen and transmen on their respective HRTs. -- WiccaIrish 13:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Natalie Angier is certainly a skilled reporter (who has even won the Pulitzer prize for her science writing), but she is not a scientist. She writes popular literature about the work of scientists. You said, “This article presents a point of view shared by quite some anthropologists. It is generally quite good at making the case that the female sex drive is probably no lower than the male.” However, rather than pop literature about the work of anthropologists work I would be quite interested to read some of those anthropologists work. Could you provide a reference that is not from the popular literature, but rather from an academic source?

With regard to the 'studies' you cite... again, that is not the primary literature, but a popular discussion of the same. (For example, the quote you repeated is not from the two journals you list after it, but is a quote from an interpretation of them, so you should cite that as the source of the quote, not the references cited in the bibliography of them. That would be like quoting me from here and attributing that quote to the papers that I quoted.) So could we just stick to the actual scientific literature? Not that I don't appreciate that pop science can be an important way to educate people, but I don't think its appropriate to quote Bill Nye the Science Guy (or Discovery Magazine, Discovery Channel, etc) in an encyclopedia when you can simply return to the primary source.

Lastly, not only is the person who made that comment rarely online (it takes her 2 weeks to answer an email from me sometimes,) but given the adolescent responses from this discussion, like vandalizing my talk page, referring to me as a Nazi or stating that I obviously would support FGM, I am simply not willing to throw her to the jackals here.NickGorton 15:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

LLCobb, I looked at the actual two references that were cited (by the quote you 're-quoted'). (The one that looks like it is attributed to JAMA and Clin Endo.)

The point of the original quote is that T isn't the sexual fountain of youth in women. They state of the JAMA article: “The first one measured testosterone and DHEA-S levels in women 45-75 and compared them with a sexual function profile. There was no correlation between low sex drive and low levels of either hormone.” However, that article actually looked at three androgens to see if they correlated with sexual function. Of the three two did not (T and androstenedione,) but one did - DHEA. That is, the quote you reprinted said: see, this study showed that serum levels of two androgen hormones didn't correlate with sexual function... but they ignore the fact that one of the assayed androgens did. Of course they also mis-stated which of the three tested androgens were not associated with sexual function. (The original JAMA article found that DHEA did have some predictive value, while T and androstenedione did not. The secondary pop source that you re-quote incorrectly states that it was T and DHEA that were not related to sexual function.)

However, the biggest problem is not the typo of indicating DHEA when they meant androstenedione, but that while they celebrate and tell you about the data in the article that supports their conclusion, they completely ignore the data that does not support the conclusion.

The article in Clinical Endocrinology on that date, in that volume, on that page is entitled [“Short-term testosterone supplementation does not activate GH and IGF-I production in postmenopausal women.”] Its not about gender differences in libido as far as I can see. All it says is that supplementing T in women does not cause an increase in the pulsatile secretion of growth hormone, and that low T levels in post-menopausal women are probably not the proximate cause of low levels of GH.

How this supports the idea that low dose testosterone supplementation in women does anything (good or bad) to libido is beyond me.

Though this is the problem in citing popular sources that I indicated. You need to go back to the primary source – especially with the pop literature rather than more academic secondary sources. You need to ensure that the quoted primary source actually says what the author of the pop secondary source claims. So, though while this does not support your premise, its a great example what POV can do.NickGorton 07:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick I'm in the middle of a move and will cite some more studies when I get some time. For now do check out the study that WiccaIrish linked to: ["Women's Libido Just as Strong as Men's"]. The article was reviewed and approved by Brunilda Nazario MD. The testosterone study was just an interesting aside for me. My main point is that women being less horny than men is no "fact". It is your opinion rather than undisputed "empirical knowledge" as you said. This is obvious as many legitimate scientists and studies such as the one WiccaIrish cited disagree with your view. Unlike Angela I have no problem if you want to believe women are less sexual but claiming that your opinion is fact is just not true. LLCobb

First, again, that was not an actual journal article that WiccaIrish linked to. It was a discussion of a study by a reviewer that was not in the scientific literature. As you demonstrated quite nicely in that blurb you quoted, the POV of the person quoting the study can heavily effect how it is interpreted. So I would say you need to cite the actual study. Unfortunately, WebMD does not give you the actual citation. I spent a few minutes trying to figure out what they referred to, but I can't find it now. So if you want to quote a 'study', you need to find that citation for that study.

With regard to whether it is an accepted scientific idea, the several articles I provided citations for all supported that. In fact the 2001 systematic review from Baumeister et al in the Personality and Social Psychology Review stated: “Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive.”

Basically that is saying, in reviewing the scientific literature, every single study we found in the literature that assayed the differences between men and women, regardless of the way it was measured, the sex drive in men was greater than the sex drive in women. In fact, your own link to WebMD said as much, in that it said 'here is a single article that challenges the prevailing scientific viewpoint. Isn't that cool?' Well, guess what that prevailing scientific viewpoint actually is?

Now certainly science can be wrong, and certainly the way to get at this is doing more research. However, even if the actual research study that was discussed in the WebMD article said exactly what they describe, that does not necessarily mean that the prevailing scientific viewpoint is changed. That is, when answering any question in science, you need to look at where the preponderance of the evidence leads you. If every study in the literature reports that aspirin is good for a heart attack, and one study says 'no, it might not be good' then you have to assume that the single study is the statistical variation. Of course if that study is replicated – hey, then we need to change our paradigm. But until that replication occurs, you need to go with where the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points.

That would be the case here, even if the WebMD article had an NPOV in reporting the findings of the actual study. That is, I have demonstrated to you (and cited my sources, including a systematic review article in the literature) that the prevailing scientific opinion based on many studies is X. You have shown me a report that says 'a journal article (that we don't actually cite properly) says not-X.' Even if the actual article says 'not-X' that still doesn't change the prevailing scientific evidence. That makes the un-cited study that WebMD described an interesting preliminary study that suggest we need to do more work to see if that finding is replicated.

But then hey, in finding the citation you want to talk about, you may find other citations that are similar. If you do, then perhaps there has been a paradigm shift in the past few years about which I have been unaware. If that is the case, please show me the citations and I will be happy to read more. However, as I've shown you both by primary research studies, and a systematic review, that's not what I have found assaying the scientific literature.

And don't worry about how long it takes you. My family is visiting and I have been busy as well. -- NickGorton 16:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish says: I decided to search for the study at PubMed and Google. You can find the abstract here, Abstract. The full version here, Full. Don't necessarily agree with it. -- WiccaIrish 23:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that article WiccaIrish. And I agree: I am sorta underimpressed overall, but the pertinent finding to this conversation was that while the differences between men and women decreased with a form of testing that 'corrected' for the tendency of women to under-report their sexuality, it was not eliminated.

That is similar to what you see in women's and men's sports performance. At the top end of elite athletics, the difference between males and females has gotten dramatically less over the past several decades. But that does not mean that there are not some innate biological differences in male and female body types that will, despite removal of all societal discouragements of girls and women in sports, will remain.

So we have shown that there is less difference between male and female sex drives than is suggested if you allow the confounding effect of societal norms to remain. Similarly, we know that some of the difference in male and female athletic performance is due to these effects. However, that does not mean that all of the difference is based on societal effects.

In essence your study (again if you look at the original, not the interpretation) actually supports my point. In fact, the first sentence in that paper is “Research on self-reported sexual attitudes and behavior consistently indicates that men are more inclined than women to engage in sexual behavior outside of committed relationships and are less discriminating with regard to quality and quantity of sexual partners.” They subsequently suggest that some of this difference is societal, but that still does not change the fact that a difference remains even when you control for that.

So I am still waiting for some evidence that contradicts my statement that the prevailing scientific opinion is that men have stronger sexual drives than women. All you've given me so far is popular interpretations of studies that, when you actually go back to the primary source support my contention rather than yours. But then its been a very good object lesson in not completely trusting people's interpretations of things. Always go back to the original source yourself.NickGorton 04:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish: What exactly in the study do you disagree with? I thought you already said women being less sexual was an unreliable stereotype. -- LLCobb

WiccaIrish says: I believe the study had shown that women's sex drives are slightly higher than originally thought. Slightly. I believe that there really is a difference in libido, but not significantly so. As far as I know, it is mainly due to testosterone. It is better to read the primary source (in this case a study in a respected, peer-reviewed journal) than to rely on a reporter's interpretation of such. Facts should be based on good, solid scientific studies rather than opinion. This has nothing to do with a "religious fervor." We do not know the doctor's opinion on this study, Nazario merely reviewed and approved the article. The way I see it, that's merely sort of in line with an editor. As far as Angela goes, she herself identified as a "pro-sex feminist." I've never known a feminist to be so hostile to transsexual people, unless said person was of the "radical" persuasion. There are different varities of "radical." As far as there being female paraphiliacs and fetishists, you are correct. -- WiccaIrish 10:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

WiccaIrish: You say there is "a difference in libido" between men and women "but not significantly so." This is a far cry from what Nick Gorton is arguing. Nick has argued it is a fact that as a gender women are far less sexual than men. Hence Nick's endorsement of the "puttering around in a yugo" description of female sexuality. Regarding opinion vs. fact well presenting one's opinion as fact is exactly what Nick likes to do! It is by no means a fact that men are inherently more sexual than women. There are definitely scientists who think otherwise based on the available data. In fact on the personal level I think otherwise based on my real world experiences in life not on some preconceived bias. At the bare minimum there are many women who are at least as sexual as even a highly sexed male. I know this as I have experienced how sexual they are. That Nick can pretend that the "yugo" nonsense is some kind of fact shows an understanding of sexuality that is clearly lacking. I will post some more studies and such as time is available. --LLCobb

Just as an intellectual exercise for you, LLCobb, I would suggest you go back and actually read my original comment. I said:

“How about a compromise that essentially takes the good point from Angela's edit (i.e. the idea that HRT does not completely simulate the exact male or female biological state, but rather that it provides changes that help the patient be more comfortable in his or her body.) It also notes that some transwomen experience significant reductions in sex drive. Though to be honest, I have had transwomen patients who report very satisfactory sex lives, so that isn't a universal at the least. Though to be honest, my pet theory is that its a perception problem. As a friend of mine, who is a transwoman put it to me: if you've been used to driving a ferarri your whole life then suddenly you are driving a yugo... uphill... with a headwind, it seems a lot lacking. However, if you've been puttering around your whole life in a yugo, it doesn't seem so bad.”

But then I invite you to quote me where I actually said that women are "far less sexual than men".

The whole scree that Angela/Nescar started was about a single comment that I made regarding that comparison that a transgender female that I know made. If you can somehow show that I spent a great deal of time making that point, I'd be happy to agree that its an issue. However, it isn't. This is about a single comment I made once. So please do not attribute the arguments I presented in the following discussion with Angela/Nescar's obsession with that comment.

This whole topic went:

1. I made that comment.
2. Angela/Nescar compares me to Josef Mengele, starts an anti-trans tirade, states that transgender men are 'pretend men', refers to me as a female, etc.
3. It becomes clear that Angela/Necsar's issue is primarily not about transgender people (except that the entire idea of transgender people threatens her sense of self worth as a woman)
4. It becomes clear that the issue wasn't that my friend likened her decrease in sex drive when taking HRT to going from a Jag to a Yugo, but rather that Angela/Nescar feels offended by the idea that women have a sex drive that is less than men.
5. I state that well, the mainstream scientific view as well as every shred of research published to date supports this view.
6. Several people, yourself included, try to refute that statement. They are unsuccessful, because you cannot make research articles appear that do not exists, and you can't put words in the mouth of scientists.

So I say again. Put up or shut up. Thus far you have not proved your position. In fact, you've given us some really good sources that support my position. Simply coming back every so often to say what a evil mean sexist doo-doo head I am simply makes you look like an adolescent vandal. Or worse like an Angela/Nescar sockpuppet.

Fortunately Wikipedia is (ideally) about facts and logical discourse. If you would like to present new facts or new cogent arguments that what I have said is false, please do so. If you cannot, then we all would be best served if you'd find a subject matter on which you can contribute positively. -NickGorton 20:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick: The article "Women's Libido as Strong as Men's" was reviewed by a medical doctor and quotes Terri Fisher PhD who led the study. WebMD is not a publication you can shrug off as unaccountable "pop science." To the contrary it is physician-reviewed. That you so quickly reject anything that disagrees with your view is interesting. The kneejerk way you do so reminds me of a cleric dismissing another view as heresy. It is your article of faith that women are less sexual than men. You claim that this is a fact and not even up for debate. However as the article shows there are mainstream scientists who disagree with you. They openly express skepticism toward your belief that women are less sexual than men! That you can simply ignore this outright shows the depth of your pseudo-religious fervor.

You keep pointing to studies that agree with you. I never denied that plenty of scientists support your view. What I emphatically deny is that your view is settled fact as you have erroneously claimed. The study most certainly does not support your contention. Never do the authors state that they agree with your view. To the contrary they point out that the data which you use to support your view is highly unreliable.

When you claim that your stereotype of female sexuality is fact you cross the line from science into faith. Scientists are not immune from quasi-religious attitudes and you are an excellent example. In your debates not just with me but with Angela and WiccaIrish and others you are blatantly dismissive of data which contradicts your own - dare I say - prejudices. Scientists can form their own orthodoxies. Studies often have the de facto goal of merely confirming foregone conclusions (such as popular stereotypes) while filtering out any contradictory data. Before 1975 the APA considered homosexuality a mental disorder. Throughout modern history there have been all sorts of peer-reviewed studies that purport to demonstrate the pathology of homosexuality or racial differences in intelligence etc. Fortunately even many decades ago a minority of American scientists were skeptical of the belief that whites were inherently more intelligent than blacks. However the scientific orthodoxy often leaned in the other direction. Large swathes of the scientific community endeavor to back up whatever is politically and socially correct at the time. Eugenics had legions of scientific defenders just a few decades ago and still has plenty today (though usually under a more benign sounding name). In the Victorian era many scientists categorically stated that women had no sex drive at all. Even to this day there are many educated psychologists who state that fetishes and paraphilias are exclusively a "male problem." They do not seem to be bothered that their views are contradicted by women in the real world.

Patricia Pearson writes that "we live in a culture that can barely acknowledge robust female sexual desire, let alone the presence amongst us of female sexual predators. Nasty desires in women have to be the fault of a man...the notion that women can be sexual aggressors, capable of objectifying those they desire, and desiring them deviantly, is so politically incorrect, not to mention unpleasant, we have barely begun this sort of research."* "Politically incorrect" is right; that's one major reason why there is so much resistance to this sort of research. Contrary to your claims it is very unlikely that Angela is a "radical feminist." Rad-fem orthodoxy tends to strongly agree with the stereotypes you hold dear. I have yet to meet a "radical feminist" who didn't believe that men are oversexed brute beasts and women are merely their victims. It is politically correct for women to be sexual victims but not for women to be sexually aggressive beings in their own right. Even the mere thought is taboo. To question the "women are less sexual" paradigm is represents a potential danger for the status quo. Most rad-fems and their supposed opposites the male chauvinists are equally committed to maintaining this myth. The same is true for countless other groups who resist change - from the church to the court system to huge sections of academia.

Frankly it does not take guts to merely defend popular stereotypes be they "women are less sexual" or "blacks have bigger penises but smaller brains" or "pedophiles are men not women". It does take guts to challenge what is already politically and socially correct with the penetrating light of skepticism. Scientists who are skeptical of your view definitely fit the latter category. I am thankful for their existence. At its best science is about questioning "conventional wisdom" rather than just dittoing what people supposedly already "know." LLCobb

LLCobb, WiccaIrish found the actual article that the WebMD link to which you refer was written about. If you read the actual study you will find that it supports my point of view. In fact the first paragraph is a review of the existing medical and scientific literature that says exactly what I have been saying all along. That is, all the research we have done so far says men have a stronger sex drive. Every way we look at it. Every study. Every measure. Every time. Not one single study suggests that women have a stronger sex drive.

Then, the actual research paper goes on to say that if they use the bogus pipeline methodology, they find that the difference between women's and men's sex drives gets smaller but does not go away.

Have a look at it yourself. WiccaIrish was good enough to poke around and get you a link to the research paper that the WebMD page was a news story about. Go back and read the actual journal article – the proverbial horses mouth.

With regards to whether WebMD is pop science.... you have got to be kidding, right? WebMD is a pop medical NEWS source that reports on what is published in the actual peer-reviewed literature. There is a HUGE GAPING MASSIVE chasm of a difference between WebMD and the actual peer reviewed literature. That is, WebMD takes the medical and scientific literature and reports on it in a less technical summary manner, in much the same way that the New York Times does. (In fact, in my personal experience, I think WebMD is not nearly as good or thorough as the NYTimes.) However, the point is that this is reporting on science and not the actual scientific literature itself.

And yes, if the report published in a popular source contradicts or misrepresents what is published in the actual peer-reviewed literature, it is eminently dismissable. So then the real question is not what someone says about what was published, but what was actually published. So have a look at the actual journal article itself and you'll find it supports my point. That is, since there is a disagreement, why not look at the original source and not what [Jeanie Davis] thinks about what the source said?

Though since you put so much stock in the fact that [Brunilda Nazario, MD] reviewed Ms Davis' work and thought it was good, I will give you this:

• I, Nick Gorton, MD, having read the actual peer reviewed journal article in question, think Ms Davis' review was not an accurate description of the findings of the study.

So there you go. A Medical Doctor thinks Ms Davis was right (that would be Brunilda) and a Medical Doctor thinks Ms Davis was off the mark (that would be me). Since there is a conflict of our opinions, I think the best thing to do is to simply go back to the [ORIGINAL PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE] on which Ms Davis reported.

Of course, that article says exactly what I've been saying all along: All of the existing scientific and medical research, not SOME, not MOST OF, but ALL OF THE EXISTING RESEARCH says that men's sex drive is higher than women's. Moreover, the one description of a research study that you cite actually discusses a paper that agrees with that statement.

But then it would be VERY VERY EASY for you to prove me wrong. All you have to do is find ONE SINGLE article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows men's sex drives are not higher than women's.

Its very simple:

• I said: all of the existing scientific research literature shows that men's sex drives are higher than women's.
• If you can find ONE research study that is published in a peer reviewed journal, my above statement will be false.
• Find that study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and you will prove me wrong. I will not only concede the point, but I'll re-edit the article myself to state that!

You want to prove me wrong? PLEASE DO SO! If you cannot prove me wrong, PLEASE STOP belaboring the point with useless links to news reports and opinion papers. If the research supports your point, SHOW ME THE RESEARCH! If not, then simply admit that the existing peer-reviewed scientific literature supports my point.

Because just because you don't like the answer that science gives you, that does not mean that science is wrong or sexist. And just because I tell you something you don't like is what science says, that does not mean I am sexist. That is, if I say: most of the people who die from AIDS are African, that is not racist. That is stating a fact. If I say that all of the existing scientific research says women's sex drives are lower than men's, that is not sexist. It is a simple statement of fact. Not liking the facts does not change them.NickGorton 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In "Recognizing Sexual Myths," Gary L. Hansen, PhD writes, "Myth: Males have stronger sex drives and are more interested in sex than females. Fact: The female's sex drive is just as strong as the male's." Yet Nick would have us believe her over real scientists who went to real universities who are far more intelligent and accomplished. More coming soon! -LH

Types I and II of 5-alpha reductase in androgenic alopecia

Type I is predominant in the sebaceous glands of most regions of the skin, including the scalp. This is a quick search.

http://www.keratin.com/ac/baldnessbiology/baldnessbiochemistry/002reductasetissuedistribution.shtml http://www.keratin.com/ac/baldnessbiology/baldnessbiochemistry/003reductaseisoenzymeactivity.shtml

And then dutasteride: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14528059&query_hl=1 http://www.dutasteride.com/ http://www.stophairlossnow.co.uk/Avodart_Clinical_Trial.htm

I use dustasteride myself. -- WiccaIrish 00:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was half way through putting up my reasoning and I was drug out of my lunch 1/4 hour prematurely.

In the interests of keeping the article shorter (since it is already overlong) I went for simplicity. However while it is correct that there is type 1 enzyme as well as type 2 in scalp skin, the pertinent one with regard to mpb is type 2. If you fully suppress type 2 (or have a congenital absence of type 2 enzyme) you do not get mpb - which is why propecia works.

If you want it to express that clinically unimportant fact, np. We can, though we need to be clear that it is the type 2 enzyme which causes the problem being discussed... Because the whole idea of this is explaining how propecia works.

With regard to dutasteride, that is actually not what I would recommend to a transman (as this area in the article was about.) Durasteride is a dual 5-alpha reductase inhibitor and would not only inhibit type 2, which is the one pertinent to MPB, but also type 1, which would likely decrease the other masculinizing effects of testosterone as it is much better at suppressing serum DHT levels. That is certainly what a transwoman would want, but not a transman.

Though while the area you edited about transmen is fine - either before or after you added the minutiae, you might like to add the information you are discussing where it would be helpful – in the section on transgender women. (Though fwiw, few of my transpatients can afford either finasteride or dutasteride. Since much of this is out of pocket treatments, aldactone sadly ends up being the drug of choice.)NickGorton 05:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Those are fine reasons. Although I've seen both 'androgenetic' and 'androgenic.' A Google search shows over 60k websites for the former (inclu. emedicine and some derm. websites) and over 30k for the latter. -- WiccaIrish 08:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Cisgender and Oophorectomy

I changed natal to Cisgender. I had this fight previously and was defending my use of the term natal to describe people who are not trans. In the course of that discussion, I realized three things:

• Natal pisses many transgender people off as bad as saying a biological female or even real female,
• I was using the term natal because it sounded more scientific (and hence valuable to me), and
• The term cisgender more aptly describes what we are wanting to say here: the group of men (or women) who are not trans.

So I have actually started using that term when I mean that concept. I've heart objections that it is a neologism or some uber-pc nonsense. But if that is the case, then so is heterosexual. That is, we didn't have the word heterosexual to describe people who are not homosexual or bisexual until we had and used the words homosexual and bisexual.

With regards to that bit about oophorectomy for transwomen.... huh? That passage was directly copied from what I wrote about Transmen by 211.29.20.240 - on my 35th birthday, oddly enough. I guess it was a present? ;) However, its not just that transwomen don't need oophorectomies, but I also believe the DEXA comment is completely unfounded when talking about transwomen. I've never heard that advocated by anyone for transwomen. If anything, they would be more protected from osteoporosis by the large doses of E they take.NickGorton 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree on cisgender - why not? Nothing wrong with neologisms & I take your point re. 'natal' being potentially offensive. Re. DEXA. I need to pmail you on that one. :-) - Pete C ^✍ 20:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)