Talk:Feminizing hormone therapy/Archive 1

Much of article same as female-to-male article
One notes that the male-to-female article has much text the same as the female-to-male article. This will lead to maintenance headaches as you try to keep them in step. Perhaps move the common text into Hormone replacement therapy or use templates for it or something. Jidanni (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy sentences
The following sentences in the introduction are extremely clumsy. If someone more confident in editing could rectify it that would be great.

"It cannot undo the changes produced by the first natural occurring puberty of transgender people, this is done by sexual reassignment surgery and for transwomen by epilation. "

"However, not all cases of hormone replacement therapy are used by transgendered people. Some reasons for this include men who wish to have a hair-free body, as a result of less of the testosterone, androgens in their body." 124.170.162.203 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor
Hi all,

I was wondering whether someone could seriously rewrite this article in such way that it's actually readable for people without knowledge of medicine. I am very interested in this topic and although there's enough links to pages about certain words (which are written pretty much the same medical type of language), I would like to be able to just know what is said.

Example: "Due to decreased androgens, the meibomian glands (aka., tarsal, palpebral, or tarsoconjunctival glands. A type of sebaceous gland on the upper and lower eyelids that open at the edges of the lids) produce less oil (oil that makes up the lipid layer of tear film which prevents the evaporation of the watery layer beneath) and a tendency for dry eyes may be a problem."

I really just understand "which prevents the evaporation of the watery layer beneath) and a tendency for dry eyes may be a problem.", while I'd like to be able to read all. 82.204.79.98 (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Transgender vs. transgendered
Hi,

Recent edits changed "transgender" to "transgendered" en masse. It's always best to discuss on the talk page before making such a change. The assertion that "transgender" is grammatically incorrect is, itself, incorrect; it's in common usage. For example, the GLAAD Media Reference Guide says, "The word transgender never needs the extraneous 'ed' at the end of the word. In fact, such a construction is grammatically incorrect. Only verbs can be transformed into participles by adding '-ed' to the end of the word, and transgender is an adjective, not a verb." Since many people find the word "transgendered" offensive and few object to "transgender", I think the latter is the best one to use on Wikipedia. But since people may disagree, it's best to have the discussion on this talk page before deciding to change the article. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Some cisgendered men may use HRT to have a hair-free body, as a result of less testosterone in their body."
Can anyone provide more information on this? I have never heard of it before...

66.128.15.59 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Transgendercare.com hormone guide book
TGCare's hormone guide has been removed from external links by user, Biker Biker, as spam.

I have used this guide for two years and has been recommended by my support group. I know there are medical provider links on the page but the guide is a very informative--it is the most complete I have found. I am a puzzled by this as the external link currently shown, Transsexual Road Map (http://www.tsroadmap.com/index.html) is replete with ads linking to GENDERLIFE (see banner ad on page for http://genderlife.com/) for VIDEOS, GUIDEBOOKS, MOVIE RENTALS, LINKS TO AMAZON, PAYPAL...well you get the idea.

Is this really an issue of spam or is it just cronyism.

Here is my proposed addition:

Transgendercare - http://www.transgendercare.com/default.asp --OR-- http://www.transgendercare.com/medical/resources/tmf_program/default.asp

Hormone Guide for Male-to-Female hormone therapy

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turing56 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Turing56; I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. In accordance with the guideline that Wikipedia is not a compendium of external links, I've removed all external links except the link to the Tom Waddell clinic (a government site) and the link to a journal article (a reliable source). External links should be kept to a minimum. If you have a page that you consider a reliable source that could serve as a citation for an unsourced statement that is already in the article, it would be much better to make it a citation.


 * Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good-faith editing as well. Things go more smoothly when we do. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your insights and your link to "external link guidelines." However,


 * Removing an external link to *original content* on this scarce subject is unacceptable.


 * Equally unacceptable is the amount of Wikipedia transgender content that is tied directly to MERCHANTS.

As example, much of Wikipedia's transgender / transsexual content reveals a large number of external links to TSROADMAP. And many of these TSROADMAP WIKIPEDIA links are targeted to blatant advertising for this web site author's products.

I will, as possibly others do, continue to sense cronyism or poor policing on Wikipedia's transgender related content until external links to MERCHANTS such as TSROADMAP are either pared down to a releasable extent or duly noted as mercantile.

Using this one merchant as an example, here is a small sampling of Wikipedia's external links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy_%28male-to-female%29#External_links targets this ad: http://www.genderlife.com/shop/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexualism#External_links targets this ad/ad related YouTube content: http://www.genderlife.com/shop/amazon.htm http://www.youtube.com/user/deepstealth

Many other pages of Wikipedia's transgender content also target this same merchant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turing56 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that other spam exists does not give you the right to spam your own website. If you think another site is spam then go fix it - see WP:BOLD --Biker Biker (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Biker Biker, Kindly refrain from accusations. The transgender content here will only benefit from facts. I am not connected with this web site. I do, however, see a small wedge of information being overemphasized which harms those with differing resources and viewpoints. Turing56. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turing56 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither transgendercare.com nor tsroadmap.com are spam sites... and both qualify as legitimate links under Wikipedia policies, which allow external links: External_links - "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."  And please note, Turing56, that links to websites supported by advertising are not forbidden under these policies... as long as they are not "Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising", and tsroadmap.com is regarded by many as an indispensable free resource for information on transitioning.
 * However, I'm not bothering to add restore links to either of those websites, since there is now more "authoritative" content available, links to which I've added in the External Links section.
 * If I recall correctly from looking over it a year ago, transgendercare.com is a very informative website... and I personally would have no objection to seeing it here (I think it probably should not have been removed), but I'm not interested in arguing over its inclusion. However, The Endocrine Society's guideline is pretty much The Word on the subject, and it should definitely be included here... thanks! -- bonze blayk (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Turing56, I would request again that you please assume good faith. We're all trying to improve the article here. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

bonze blayk, you choose not to include works except for those that contain 'The Word' on the subject? We do not need a Transgender Council of Nicaea. We need editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.72.106 (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * He said he thinks those sites should be included, not that they shouldn't. I tend to agree... those are going to be much more accessible to the general readers of wikipedia, being inclusive, updated sites with all kinds of info on the topic rather than specific documents targeted at the professional community. The PDFs are still valuable though, they can be hard to fish out of google. LieAfterLie (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge sections Changes and Hormone Effects
I notice these two sections are pretty much the same thing with different names, and one is more of a summary. Should we merge them by just using the 'changes' section as the beginning of the 'effects' section? Then where would it go, before or after the 'types of therapy' section?

Otherwise.. as the 'effects' section is really big, it makes sense to have it at the end and a little summary where appropriate. But the sections should still be renamed I think, to make the redundancy a little less confusing. Like 'summary of changes' and 'changes,' or something.. unless that's against policy, in which case they should probably just be merged. LieAfterLie (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) → Hormone replacement therapy for trans women – - We need to avoid terminology that implies that trans women actually were men before their surgery was performed. Georgia guy (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose clarity of title is desirable, since there are cases of people switching sexes twice, are they even trans women if they've done that? They still need the same HRT since they did switch from a male bodyplan to a female one, and switched HRT therapies. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think we need a new rule about requested moves that the first vote to oppose must come from a registered Wikipedian. Georgia guy (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments by unregistered IP editors probably carry less weight in debates like this, but I don't see what difference it makes whether a comment is first or last. --DAJF (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Changing the article's title is a good idea, but I would suggest Hormone replacement therapy (feminizing) to reflect the terminology used in the SOC v7 and the fact that not all those who receive HRT are trans women; some are intersex, and there are others who may not be categorized as, or identify themselves as, "trans women". -- bonze blayk (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. On second thought, a more proper title for the article would be Hormone therapy (feminizing), since taking an anti-androgen alone (for example) is a form of Sex reassignment therapy, but involves only suppressing testosterone. (Also, "Hormone therapy" is the term employed throughout the SOC v7 for all pre-surgical hormone treatment.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonze blayk (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Male-to-female (and female-to-male) are the common terms for transiting individuals. Also, it makes the page accessible for people who don't know the 'correct' terms. Trans woman (and trans man) may confuse people who would think that a trans woman is a person who was born with a 'female body'. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk |Sign 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Who doesn't know which terms are correct?? A trans woman, like any woman, is a woman according to her brain, but she was merely born with a male body, but this doesn't mean she's a man. Georgia guy (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Readers can form their own views of how to define male or female in this context. It is better to use neutral terminology than to have an article title which prejudges the issue.--- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose article at commonly used term to describe the topic. Biologically the subjects were men before the treatment, which is why the treatment is being performed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please realize that transsexuals are born transsexual. Do plenty of psychiatrists think that transsexuals merely become transsexual after the surgery?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. For those interested, there is an anologous proposal and discussion from the same nominator at Talk:Sex_reassignment_surgery_(male-to-female). — James Cantor (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Male-to-female" appears to be the preferred term in the medical sphere, and is instantly understandable by all readers, whereas "transwomen" is extremely ambiguous to lay-readers (does it mean women who were formerly men or women who wish to become men?). --DAJF (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On Hormone Levels
The serum estrogen levels recommended for trans-women in the article seem to be way too high (400-800pg/ml). The article cites a paper from 2001; i doubt this still is state of the art in 2013. I am not a doctor (but a transgendered medical student, so somewhat close to that); and i have never ever heared any recommendation, neither by a medical professional nor by other trans-women, that was higher than 250pg/ml.

Some experts here in Austria prescribe even lower doses; with typical serum estradiol levels as low as 70-80pg/ml!

All values mentioned above are for non-operated (pre-castration) trans-women.

Regards MSK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.16.219 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because the vast majority of transwomen are past puberty when starting HRT, they do not have the higher levels of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor to fully develop at lower estradiol levels. Therefore, higher serum levels, generally, turn out to be the best. With that said, everyone is different and sensitivity changes from time to time. One reason is the up- and down-regulation of estrogen receptors and desensitization. To be honest, there really is no magical one-size-fits all serum level. There is a tendency for doctors to keep us at a dosage that just barely takes care of menopausal symptoms, they are not taking into consideration of achieving maximum feminization. One person may achieve that with a low dosage another, for whatever reason (perhaps genetic or metabolism), may find they have to gradually titrate over time to a much higher dosage.


 * If what you are stating is true, I feel incredibly sorry for the transwomen in Austria. -- WiccaIrish (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, don't blame me for any advere effects (like an emotional rollercoaster ride or a deep vein thrombosis) you might experience when overdosing then...
 * MSK

The levels recommended for Transgender Women by Endocrine Society [pp.19-20] are less than 200pg/ml, and Royal College of Psychiatry [pp.35] recommends 80-140pg/ml. 400-800pg/ml seems extraordinarily high. AliceLeanne (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [1]http://www.endocrine.org/~/media/endosociety/Files/Publications/Clinical%20Practice%20Guidelines/Endocrine-Treatment-of-Transsexual-Persons.pdf [2]http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/files/pdfversion/CR181.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceLeanne (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Having another look at the Israel Text, it does not appear to reference any main sources for the 400-800pg/ml statistic. Further, it also contradicts later studies in both Estrogen and Testosterone levels. For this reason, and for the fear of having misformation on Wikipedia, I am removing the Israel work. AliceLeanne (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Example
Hi,

The example in this sentence "The size of the rib cage and shoulder width also play a role in the perceivable "size" of the breasts; both characteristics are usually smaller in natal females, i.e., if a natal female and a transsexual female were to have the same cup size, the transsexual female's breasts would most likely appear smaller." is confusing, or incorrect. It might be for the better if the sentence is changed.

Cup sizes are relative to rib cage girth, meaning that an A-cup with a 28 inch rib cage girth will be smaller than an A-cup for a 34 inch girth. In other words two people with different rib cage girths and the same breast volume, do not have the same cup size.

Since cup sizes are not static, but rather relative, the "transsexual female with a larger rib cage"'s breasts would not appear larger or smaller - they may however not grow into a cup size that would be natural for a cisgendered woman of the same size, making the person look oddly proportioned.

Other sources: Personal knowledge as a dressmaking student in her final year. (Although irrelevant, as it can't be verified)

46.9.221.219 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not only about the perception, but also a very real difference when it comes to measuring for clothes, especially where bust size is a critical measurement.

Cup size is usually calculated from two measurements: under-bust (or "band size") and on-bust (the greatest measurement usually crossing the nipples). Certainly if a female and male have identical chest size measurements, they would be unlikely to have identical cup sizes. A female torso has an on-bust measurement that's bigger than the band size mostly because of breast tissue. The torso of a born-male who has at least reached puberty is wider from side-to-side than a female, and the calculated cup size is not based upon breast tissue as it is based upon ribcage width. For example: A male with a band size of 40 inches and an on-bust size of 44 inches might be able to fit an A cup bra. If a woman had identical measurements, her cup size would be most likely D. This is based upon my own experience. 2602:304:AE25:B3A9:CD72:375C:EB7B:67CF (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Needs further sex/gender differentiation.
This article frequently uses man/men woman/women in places where the article refers to biological sex instead of gender identity. Male/female should be used in these cases. Man and woman are gender identity words and are not appropriate when discussing biological sex. --MissyQ (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/689BDFKwT?url=http://www.transgendercare.com/medical/hormonal/hormone-tx_assch_gooren.htm to http://www.transgendercare.com/medical/hormonal/hormone-tx_assch_gooren.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070315211232/http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/chn/HlthCtrs/HlthCtrDocs/TransGendprotocols.pdf to http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/chn/HlthCtrs/HlthCtrDocs/TransGendprotocols.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Article title again
Per the WP:Common name policy, and article moves such as these needing discussion first (per WP:Requested moves), I reverted Medgirl131 on moving the article to "Feminizing hormone therapy." I also reverted her on moving the Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male) article to "Masculinizing hormone therapy." Besides the WP:Common name policy, there is also Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles (a guideline) to look at. Whichever we feel should be given more weight -- the policy or guideline -- the article moves need discussion. I would like Medgirl131 to discuss this, but she does not discuss on article talk pages and has told me via email that she has her reasons for this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The title of this article should be consistent in design with the "Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)" and "Hormone replacement therapy (menopause)" articles, however. So I will go ahead and move this article to Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Can't move it myself this time. Technical error. So will ask at WP:Requested moves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927085632/http://www.endo-society.org/guidelines/final/upload/Endocrine-Treatment-of-Transsexual-Persons.pdf to http://www.endo-society.org/guidelines/final/upload/Endocrine-Treatment-of-Transsexual-Persons.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Question
Could bone structure be reversed if it was only temporary/brief use of testosterone resulting in a slight change in bone structure?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this something that needs to be addressed for the article, or something you could ask in WP:RD/S? Are you seeking medical advice? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Menstrual symptoms
Some trans women have reported experiencing symptoms of a menstrual cycle after undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Is this documented in any reliable medical sources? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 06:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to "Feminizing hormone therapy" and "Masculinizing hormone therapy"  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

– These are different things, with different names - using parenthetical disambiguation is misleading. The titles "Masculinizing hormone therapy" and "Feminizing hormone therapy" would also be something I'd support here - used by Mayo Clinic - I feel like the current titles are acceptable, but the disambiguation should be presented differently. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female) → Male-to-female transgender hormone therapy
 * Transgender hormone therapy (female-to-male) → Female-to-male transgender hormone therapy
 * Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support mv to feminizing/masculinizing . I also agree with that "Feminizing hormone therapy" and "Masculinizing hormone therapy" would be better titles for what the articles describe. "Feminizing/Masculinizing hormone therapy" is a broader and better term, and it seems to be far more common in recent literature. (Google Scholar hits: feminizing 401, male-to-female 24; masculinizing 231, female-to-male 13). The articles themselves seem to use the terms interchangeably in their current state, so I see no reason not to change the titles. If there's not consensus to move to feminizing/masculinizing, then I would support at least doing the proposed move to eliminate the parentheticals.  Sr ey Sr os talk 21:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC) updated to clarify what I'm supporting 18:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the terms male-to-female and female-to-male are offensive in this context, but more to the point, they are inaccurate. Feminizing and masculinizing are better choices.
 * Note that my “oppose” vote is because I oppose the RM “new name” as proposed in the RM statement, but note that my conclusion is exactly the same as others voting “support” who in fact do not support the RM target as defined either. That is, it seems like some of the “support” and “oppose” votes are on the same side of this debate. This is going to make it harder for the closer, who will need to read and interpret the results carefully. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To make my own !vote clearer, it is this: "oppose RM proposal as listed; support masculinizing/feminizing option". Hopefully future !votes will clarify as well. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it seems like both of you agree with "masculinizing" and "feminizing" titles - do you also agree with this? If so, that would seem to be the clear outcome here. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no need to rush things, others may wish to weigh in. Have you listed this at any relevant WikiProjects (see top of this page)? See WP:APPNOTE. Listing this discussion in a neutral way at the four projects mentioned, may draw additional interested editors here, and give a better sense of what the consensus is.  I've listed it at WT:LGBT, and at related article Talk:Hormone replacement therapy; feel free to steal the code to list it at the other three projects. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * of course, I'm not trying to get this closed today. I just wanted to make sure people who were previously involved had a chance to give their opinion on the alternative suggestion. Anyway, I'll ping the relevant projects. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose RM as proposed, support move to feminizing/masculinizing. My reasoning is pretty much the same as Mathglot's. GreenComputer (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not see any arguments in this discussion to remove the word "transgender" from the title. It would be helpful to confirm why this word should be removed (or why it should stay). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the title it was moved to is shorter - there's no need to keep "transgender" in the title - and not everyone who does masculinizing or feminizing hormone therapy is trans. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true it wasn't mentioned specifically, but the proposed new titles were out there in the open, and consensus seems to have gone that way anyway, with a good-faith close that evaluated the discussion; correctly, imho. You're not wrong that no specific arguments were brought forth on that point, and although I don't believe it would change the outcome, I won't stand in the way, if you wish to request a WP:Move review so it can be discussed specifically. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The clear consensus in the discussion was to use "feminizing/masculizing hormone therapy" rather than a version with "transgender". I don't think there needs to be specific discussion on that point. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Introductory sentence
"from masculine or androgynous to feminine" expands to the equivalent "masculine to feminine or androgynous to feminine", which doesn't include masculine to androgynous. IDK if anyone cares but feminizing hormone therapy can be used that way sometimes. At he same time, I don't want to make the sentence so "accurate" (read: complex) that it's unreadable. Anyone who reads deep enough into the article can probable guess some transfeminine nonbinary people go from masculine to androgynous. Let me know if this is a real problem or you don't know what I'm smoking. I feel like we don't really need to specify the categories; the sentence just seems to try to express that feminization occurs, that femininity increases. 98.246.217.105 (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Widening and rounding of the pelvis
Hi!

I noticed that the explanation for why no pelvic changes would occur is the onset of epiphyseal closure. This was odd to me because the pelvis does not have epiphyseal plates. They appear in long bones and are responsible for lengthening: most bone growth does not occur this way. More importantly the changes in question are actually bone remodelling, a lifelong process.

This led me to doing some research and finding evidence to suggest that remodelling of the pelvic bone has been documented in post-pubertal adults. Do we have any evidence to suggest a lack of change in this area in individuals undergoing feminising hormone therapy? None is cited anywhere on the page, presumably because long-term data on patients is essentially nonexistent. If we have no evidence I would recommend modifying the table to indicate this, removing mention of epiphyseal closure, and expanding the section discussing bone/skeletal changes to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.222.246 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Article content claiming "ColemanBockting2012" as the source are not verified
There are sixteen citations which use reference (i.e., ref name="ColemanBockting2012") but none of them have a page number or page range indicating where in the 120-page document the article content can be verified. That is not reasonable, and in my view content using this source is unverified. If you know the page number for any of the sixteen citations, please add it; the rp template may be used for this, if desired. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * While I agree ideally we have page numbers for those and should add them - the paper it cites is the SOC7 from WPATH, which isn’t a random paper, but is the defacto standard for Transgender healthcare, now succeeded by the newer SOC8 that was published in 2022.
 * So saying that it is unverified is probably a bit of a stretch. Raladic (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)