Tumgik
#the discoveries being made in the adjacent rooms? ugh anyways Goodnight i am going to BED
the-trans-dragon · 9 months
Text
I'm not complaining exactly, but. Lol.
When reliable medical sources use the "assigned [sex] at birth" language...
I do appreciate it! When a medical article ignores transgender people, it lessens the credibility for me. If it says "This occurs more in women," I *know* what they are intending to convey, but theyre also telling me, "We studied cis people only." And as a trans person, I need my medical resources to account for my existence, y'know?
So when they say "More likely in people assigned female at birth," it's helpful! I now know that they know I exist, but...they're saying essentially the same thing, ei, "We studied cis people only (probably)."
I realize that there isn't better terminology for this stuff.
I have my own terms for these! And I am eagerly waiting for the medical community to figure out some terms too.
Currently I use "Estrogen-Dominant Hormone System" and "Testosterone-Dominwnt Hormone System." I came with those btw >:3 I'm rather proud of them!! You could also call it "Estrogen-Led Hormone System."
It isn't perfect, but it does ACTUALLY allow "cis women" and "trans people taking 'feminizing'* hormones" to exist in the same category, as opposed to saying "AFAB" and then trying to figure out how to handle any outliers taking 'masculinizing'* hormones.
*I don't really like this word to describe it. I'd personally call it "Estrogen-Dominant HRT" and "Testosterone-Dominant HRT." The latter might be a little redundant, but E-dominant HRTs vary widely, due to the option of using progesterone or androgen-blockers (and other meds that affect hormone levels); and simply calling it "Estrogen HRT" implies that it doesn't involve anything besides estrogen.
It STILL wouldn't INDICATE trans inclusivity, BUT. WHENEVER THEY GET AROUND TO INCLUDING TRANS PEOPLE it'll be very helpful.
It hopefully also accounts for intersex people (not perfectly; but it doesn't work perfectly for trans people; which is to say: it would function BEST as a stepping stone towards more comprehensive terminology).
Lastly, I think it would allow for some spectrums to be considered, rather than a strict binary. I think that, medically, it would be *infinitely* more valuable to consider "sex" in terms of "various hormones, in consideration of some 'normal' ranges and in consideration of the ratios comparing them with other hormones." Example:
ADHD meds and "females." ADHD meds have different efficacy throughout the monthly menstrual cycle. "Because of the way estrogen varies during the cycle." But I want *more* data.
Does estrogen alone change the efficacy?
Is it a combination of multiple hormones that fluctuate?
Is it because "Hormones A increased," or is it because "The Ratio of Hormones A to Hormone B increased?" Did the ratio increase? Maybe the other hormone experienced an even greater increase, causing the ratio to decrease.
I've tried to stitch together some sort of answer, but Im never satisfied with it. It's hard to integrate sources that use different ranges of normal, or that measure with a different unit, or that don't specify enough details to know how to combine it to another source.
I just want science to recognize trans people, and also recognize the actual complex science behind sex, rather than operating as if it's a simple binary with strict characteristics.
So I guess I AM complaining. But not about articles using AFAB/AMAB. I'm complaining about the unresolved limits, and exclusion of trans people.
11 notes · View notes