I sought answers to that question before and I heard conflicting accounts
I think I can explain why that might be the case. Testosterone is the “male” hormone; estrogen is the “female” hormone. However, both guys and girls have some amount both hormones. It could be that those who are transgendered tend to have more of the hormone associated with the opposite sex, so adding more of that hormone would not do as much.
It could be that those who are transgendered tend to have more of the hormone associated with the opposite sex, so adding more of that hormone would not do as much.
The question is about the percentage of transpeople with originally raised hormone levels—otherwise it’s a hasty generalization. Surely if this was really the case, they’d display physical differences from their biological sex all along—for example, transwomen would look more feminine then cis men even before any hormone therapy?
I think you’re right, that probably would be the case. I’m not sure about looking more feminine, but there would definitely be other characteristics that would be different.
This has already been shown in other areas, such as the digit ratio and gay men performing closer to females on certain physical and mental tests.
However, I don’t know if there are any studies like this done for transgendered people.
On gender-related interests, a study by Richard Lippa found that trans people scored in between cis men and women for gender-related traits (i.e. GD, or “gender diagnosticity” of interests or occupational preferences).
In general, these contrasts show that M-to-F transsexuals scored similarly to gay men on all measures except for self-ascribed femininity, which was considerably higher
for transsexuals. In contrast, F-to-M transsexuals were significantly more masculine than lesbian women on all measures except for instrumentality and expressiveness.
The digit ratio study is generally regarded among transpeople as “a load of bollocks”, and that’s putting it relatively nicely. There are a lot of problems about it, and I know people who angsted about not matching its conclusions before stopping caring.
Research has tried to infer people’s exposure to prenatal testosterone levels indirectly by measuring body characteristics thought to be related to prenatal testosterone. One such characteristic is the ratio of the lengths of the second and fourth digits of the hand (i.e., the index finger and the ring finger; Manning et al., 2000). Women tend to have shorter ring fingers relative to their index fingers, whereas men tend to have longer ring fingers relative to their index fingers. Index-to-ring-finger length ratios correlate with people’s occupational choices, fertility levels, dominance, and sexual orientations (Lippa, 2003a; Manning, Scutt, Wilson, & Lewis-Jones, 1998; Williams et al., 2000). These findings suggest that prenatal testosterone levels are linked to adult gender-related behaviors.
The Wikipedia article on digit ratio also cites a ton of research showing correlates.
Well, my digit ratio should have me squarely in the cisgendered heterosexual male category.
I’m trans, female identified in day to day life, queer (not especially picky about gender of partners, even less picky about what they have in their pants)… it’s one anecdote, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the digit length criteria failed bigtime where I’m concerned.
I myself lack the experience to present a coherent argument against it, but ask any trans community and you’ll get dozens of replies.
There are some objections that I can present on the fly, though. For one, there is no evidence that sex hormone level or this unobservable “brain gender” is the most important factor contributing to digit ratio. The very Wikipedia article you linked claims, among other things, that there is more ethnic variation than gender variation.
And while this is not an argument against the validity of the research, we must be wary of drawing backward inference between observable physical phenomena and correlated social phenomena. As I mentioned, I know transpeople who were depressed when their digit ratio “didn’t match the expectation”, irrational as it may be. It should be considered, at best, weak evidence.
I think (she said, speaking as a transgendered person) that the angst has a lot to do with a more pervasive sense of self-doubt among many trans people. When you have to do something fairly subversive and controversial just to feel like yourself, and can expect an enormous amount of social pressure (ranging from passive-aggressive to literally life-threatening), and you’ve spent most of your life likely to have no coherent idea of other people like you...yeah, it’s kind of tempting to search out validation in those ways. I think this is why some trans people would love to have a diagnostic test for it—strikes me as a bit self-defeating though.
I’m trans, identify as female (technically also genderqueer/third-gender in some contexts, but it’s more an internal thing of anthropological significance than something I display), have been on hormone therapy for a number of years, and it’s only in the last year that my T levels dropped from “high even for a cis male” to “really low even for a cis female.” In other words I spent literally my entire pospubescent life up until recently with very high testosterone. So I doubt it’s that.
I think I can explain why that might be the case. Testosterone is the “male” hormone; estrogen is the “female” hormone. However, both guys and girls have some amount both hormones. It could be that those who are transgendered tend to have more of the hormone associated with the opposite sex, so adding more of that hormone would not do as much.
The question is about the percentage of transpeople with originally raised hormone levels—otherwise it’s a hasty generalization. Surely if this was really the case, they’d display physical differences from their biological sex all along—for example, transwomen would look more feminine then cis men even before any hormone therapy?
I think you’re right, that probably would be the case. I’m not sure about looking more feminine, but there would definitely be other characteristics that would be different.
This has already been shown in other areas, such as the digit ratio and gay men performing closer to females on certain physical and mental tests.
However, I don’t know if there are any studies like this done for transgendered people.
On gender-related interests, a study by Richard Lippa found that trans people scored in between cis men and women for gender-related traits (i.e. GD, or “gender diagnosticity” of interests or occupational preferences).
The digit ratio study is generally regarded among transpeople as “a load of bollocks”, and that’s putting it relatively nicely. There are a lot of problems about it, and I know people who angsted about not matching its conclusions before stopping caring.
What are the problems with digit ratio research?
From Gender, Nature, and Nurture by Richard Lippa:
The Wikipedia article on digit ratio also cites a ton of research showing correlates.
Well, my digit ratio should have me squarely in the cisgendered heterosexual male category.
I’m trans, female identified in day to day life, queer (not especially picky about gender of partners, even less picky about what they have in their pants)… it’s one anecdote, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the digit length criteria failed bigtime where I’m concerned.
I myself lack the experience to present a coherent argument against it, but ask any trans community and you’ll get dozens of replies.
There are some objections that I can present on the fly, though. For one, there is no evidence that sex hormone level or this unobservable “brain gender” is the most important factor contributing to digit ratio. The very Wikipedia article you linked claims, among other things, that there is more ethnic variation than gender variation.
And while this is not an argument against the validity of the research, we must be wary of drawing backward inference between observable physical phenomena and correlated social phenomena. As I mentioned, I know transpeople who were depressed when their digit ratio “didn’t match the expectation”, irrational as it may be. It should be considered, at best, weak evidence.
I think (she said, speaking as a transgendered person) that the angst has a lot to do with a more pervasive sense of self-doubt among many trans people. When you have to do something fairly subversive and controversial just to feel like yourself, and can expect an enormous amount of social pressure (ranging from passive-aggressive to literally life-threatening), and you’ve spent most of your life likely to have no coherent idea of other people like you...yeah, it’s kind of tempting to search out validation in those ways. I think this is why some trans people would love to have a diagnostic test for it—strikes me as a bit self-defeating though.
I’m trans, identify as female (technically also genderqueer/third-gender in some contexts, but it’s more an internal thing of anthropological significance than something I display), have been on hormone therapy for a number of years, and it’s only in the last year that my T levels dropped from “high even for a cis male” to “really low even for a cis female.” In other words I spent literally my entire pospubescent life up until recently with very high testosterone. So I doubt it’s that.