Our son received a letter from Planned Parenthood where (unbeknownst to us) he was getting estradaviol: the letter informed him that recent tests had found his risk of stroke and blood clotting is at dangerously high level and that he should see a primary care physician.. BUT THAT HE SHOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE CONTINUING HIS DRUG THERAPY!!!!! No mention made of what is clearly causing a perilous health condition in what was a perfectly normal and fully healthy body!!!!! EVIL!!!!!
Whaaat?? Was this recently …are you saying his own personal test results have drawn this conclusion…or test results from a study prompted planned parenthood to send the letter & advise him to visit his pcp?
None of these "discoveries" are surprising. Estrogen "therapy" is an all-out assault on the natural processes of the male body's chemistry. Literally, an aggressive suppression of everything the male body is hard-wired to do. Incredible that this must be pointed out.
I agree. But lawyers, politicians, doctors, educators etc etc all need that concrete evidence to cite. Otherwise the old guard just churns out the old ones regardless of whether or not they have been discredited
Men who plan to have their testicles removed are unlikely to care about the degeneration of those body parts. Irreversible changes to testicles and reproductive functioning are of more concern in the population of minors who want to medically transition. With this population, however, there are major psychological resistances to information about long term damage to the body. These include the normal inability of young people to imagine growing old and sick, and strong self-harming tendencies in the pediatric gender clinic patients. It seems unlikely that many of the patients themselves would be dissuaded from using hormones even if well-conducted research leads to the conclusion that cross sex hormones have poor long term outcomes. The combination of peer group disapproval and age-based laws restricting usage might be more effective, as has been the case with tobacco use.
Thank you for this analysis. Based on what we know about the profound effects of hormones on physiology, we should've seen this coming. Thanks again. My best, Frederick
It seems like these risks were well known for decades. I remember reading of a Canadian study about thirty years ago. They gave men estrogen on the premise that since women had fewer heart attacks and maybe estrogen could protect men as well. They had to halt the experiment because of multiple adverse effects the estrogen was having on the men.
It's outrageous that there are mountains of evidence of the harms of exogensis hormones, while still being used haphazardly. As of 2015 about 3 million women died from breast cancer tied to birth control pills and HRT as compared to about 600k people who died of AIDS.
This is terrifying. And the no contact aspect of the many kids/young adults caught up in this mass will never hear of this study. Or they will be ‘counseled’ to dismiss it as irrelevant
A puzzlement. Surely no one takes significant doses of these hormones for a prolonged period of time. For both ftm and mtf, they presumably are on de minimis doses after they're post-op. And even then it would tend to be transdermal or via pellet-release, not something going through the liver. This essay does not touch on any of these questions. Perhaps later on someone can expand.
A lot of people stay on cross sex hormones at significant levels even after reaching maximal possible changes in their appearance from the hormones and surgeries. Most common reason given is that the hormones "make me feel more like myself."
Unfortunately most of these studies used cisgender males as the control group. However, transgender women are transitioning to be as close to 'female' as possible and thus aren't typically concerned with risk compared to men. While I believe the data on cisgender male outcomes should also be included, it will likely be ignored as irrelevant in absence of data comparing outcomes to those of cisgender women. I suspect the providers of care, having embraced medical transition as a legitimate choice, would be similar in terms of being most interested in the risks compared to cisgender women. I'm glad at least some of these studies do include that info... hopefully that will become standard moving forward.
Good summary but I’d add a criticism of using medical statistics somewhat irresponsibly.
When speaking of a change of risk, X increases risk by 40%, it’s important to also state absolute risk, original risk. By not communicating original risk, or absolute measures, it gives a false sense of danger. It’s identically the same as claiming dramatic, threatening elevated risk of suicide for not granting therapy.
Consider deep-vein thrombosis. The risk of an event for an average male in good health who is not obese is around 10 in 100,000 or 0.01% annual risk.
That’s equivalent to dying in a traffic accident, which is around 0.012% annual risk, so Deep-Vein thrombosis is slightly less than a traffic fatality in risk.
A 40% increase in deep-vein thrombosis risk is 1.4 x original risk or 0.014% risk, or slightly more than the risk of dying in a traffic accident.
Compare estrogens to obesity. Obesity increases DVT risk 2x-5x.
That puts the risk comparable to dying in a motorcycle accident.
Because absolute risk is extremely low, it may be true Estrogen changes the risk, that fact is not alarming.
Consider the unethical statement “better a live daughter than a dead son”
Let’s look at the suicide case for “not using estrogen”
The absolute teen boy completed suicide rate is about 14 per 100,000, or about 0.014% risk - yes comparable to automobile accident.
The presumption of risk increase (due to increased thoughts of suicide) is 3x-4x for trans and gay boys - most “trans” boys are gay boys in fact, and thinking of suicide is not completed suicide, but let’s say there’s a 3x rise. It’s never been effectively measured that high.
The absolute risk moves from 0.014% go 0.042% - higher than a car crash, less than motorcycle fatality risk.
In fact it’s the same as that for a man over 65, which is around 0.042%, one of the highest suicide risks of all humans but we don’t have calamity thinking for these men.
In short - yes, elevated but extremely low absolute risk of illness due to estrogen, with incidence of illness quite rare.
Same issue of possible elevated risk of suicide in boys with sexual “dysphoria”, but the absolute risk is quite low and incidence of teen suicides quite rare.
“ hey I wonder if taking opposite sex hormones will have negative health impacts”
It is unfortunate we live in a time when research showing “yes, it will” is both necessary and possible when this is a “I wonder if a hot glue gun is dangerous” level question
I'll be writting on my substack Colin about this. A balanced non woke perspective of someone who's been on estrogen for 3 decades, and have known others.
Known for decades, the harm of excessive and continuous drug and alcohol use should have been a warning. Instead, removing body parts and administering drugs with no long-term studies seems to have replaced those old-timey means of making billions. Collateral damage be damned.
Doctors mostly stopped prescribing estrogen long term for post menopausal women because of risks (like blood clots, strokes). Typical dose when used is about 1 mg a day.
I met a mtf trans person who was taking 10 mg a day. He wasn't too concerned about the risk, and I didn't ask him if he'd been advised.
I am surprised by some of the results. I see comments saying it is not surprising. However, those comments do not look like they are from people with a strong scientific background. I am glad that the authors advocate for more serious study rather than claiming beyond their data's ability to sample. That being said, even if the studies show no harm beyond reproductive abilities, that alone, plus psychological effects are worth very serious consideration. Many people are losing sight of that.
Our son received a letter from Planned Parenthood where (unbeknownst to us) he was getting estradaviol: the letter informed him that recent tests had found his risk of stroke and blood clotting is at dangerously high level and that he should see a primary care physician.. BUT THAT HE SHOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE CONTINUING HIS DRUG THERAPY!!!!! No mention made of what is clearly causing a perilous health condition in what was a perfectly normal and fully healthy body!!!!! EVIL!!!!!
Whaaat?? Was this recently …are you saying his own personal test results have drawn this conclusion…or test results from a study prompted planned parenthood to send the letter & advise him to visit his pcp?
Thanks
His own personal test results. Yes.
I’m sorry but this is shocking. How is that not malpractice? How long has he been on estradaviol?
None of these "discoveries" are surprising. Estrogen "therapy" is an all-out assault on the natural processes of the male body's chemistry. Literally, an aggressive suppression of everything the male body is hard-wired to do. Incredible that this must be pointed out.
I agree. But lawyers, politicians, doctors, educators etc etc all need that concrete evidence to cite. Otherwise the old guard just churns out the old ones regardless of whether or not they have been discredited
Men who plan to have their testicles removed are unlikely to care about the degeneration of those body parts. Irreversible changes to testicles and reproductive functioning are of more concern in the population of minors who want to medically transition. With this population, however, there are major psychological resistances to information about long term damage to the body. These include the normal inability of young people to imagine growing old and sick, and strong self-harming tendencies in the pediatric gender clinic patients. It seems unlikely that many of the patients themselves would be dissuaded from using hormones even if well-conducted research leads to the conclusion that cross sex hormones have poor long term outcomes. The combination of peer group disapproval and age-based laws restricting usage might be more effective, as has been the case with tobacco use.
Thank you for this analysis. Based on what we know about the profound effects of hormones on physiology, we should've seen this coming. Thanks again. My best, Frederick
To label this as "care" is moronic.....
It seems like these risks were well known for decades. I remember reading of a Canadian study about thirty years ago. They gave men estrogen on the premise that since women had fewer heart attacks and maybe estrogen could protect men as well. They had to halt the experiment because of multiple adverse effects the estrogen was having on the men.
It's outrageous that there are mountains of evidence of the harms of exogensis hormones, while still being used haphazardly. As of 2015 about 3 million women died from breast cancer tied to birth control pills and HRT as compared to about 600k people who died of AIDS.
This is terrifying. And the no contact aspect of the many kids/young adults caught up in this mass will never hear of this study. Or they will be ‘counseled’ to dismiss it as irrelevant
My stomach is sinking
A puzzlement. Surely no one takes significant doses of these hormones for a prolonged period of time. For both ftm and mtf, they presumably are on de minimis doses after they're post-op. And even then it would tend to be transdermal or via pellet-release, not something going through the liver. This essay does not touch on any of these questions. Perhaps later on someone can expand.
A lot of people stay on cross sex hormones at significant levels even after reaching maximal possible changes in their appearance from the hormones and surgeries. Most common reason given is that the hormones "make me feel more like myself."
Unfortunately most of these studies used cisgender males as the control group. However, transgender women are transitioning to be as close to 'female' as possible and thus aren't typically concerned with risk compared to men. While I believe the data on cisgender male outcomes should also be included, it will likely be ignored as irrelevant in absence of data comparing outcomes to those of cisgender women. I suspect the providers of care, having embraced medical transition as a legitimate choice, would be similar in terms of being most interested in the risks compared to cisgender women. I'm glad at least some of these studies do include that info... hopefully that will become standard moving forward.
Good summary but I’d add a criticism of using medical statistics somewhat irresponsibly.
When speaking of a change of risk, X increases risk by 40%, it’s important to also state absolute risk, original risk. By not communicating original risk, or absolute measures, it gives a false sense of danger. It’s identically the same as claiming dramatic, threatening elevated risk of suicide for not granting therapy.
Consider deep-vein thrombosis. The risk of an event for an average male in good health who is not obese is around 10 in 100,000 or 0.01% annual risk.
That’s equivalent to dying in a traffic accident, which is around 0.012% annual risk, so Deep-Vein thrombosis is slightly less than a traffic fatality in risk.
A 40% increase in deep-vein thrombosis risk is 1.4 x original risk or 0.014% risk, or slightly more than the risk of dying in a traffic accident.
Compare estrogens to obesity. Obesity increases DVT risk 2x-5x.
That puts the risk comparable to dying in a motorcycle accident.
Because absolute risk is extremely low, it may be true Estrogen changes the risk, that fact is not alarming.
Consider the unethical statement “better a live daughter than a dead son”
Let’s look at the suicide case for “not using estrogen”
The absolute teen boy completed suicide rate is about 14 per 100,000, or about 0.014% risk - yes comparable to automobile accident.
The presumption of risk increase (due to increased thoughts of suicide) is 3x-4x for trans and gay boys - most “trans” boys are gay boys in fact, and thinking of suicide is not completed suicide, but let’s say there’s a 3x rise. It’s never been effectively measured that high.
The absolute risk moves from 0.014% go 0.042% - higher than a car crash, less than motorcycle fatality risk.
In fact it’s the same as that for a man over 65, which is around 0.042%, one of the highest suicide risks of all humans but we don’t have calamity thinking for these men.
In short - yes, elevated but extremely low absolute risk of illness due to estrogen, with incidence of illness quite rare.
Same issue of possible elevated risk of suicide in boys with sexual “dysphoria”, but the absolute risk is quite low and incidence of teen suicides quite rare.
“ hey I wonder if taking opposite sex hormones will have negative health impacts”
It is unfortunate we live in a time when research showing “yes, it will” is both necessary and possible when this is a “I wonder if a hot glue gun is dangerous” level question
I'll be writting on my substack Colin about this. A balanced non woke perspective of someone who's been on estrogen for 3 decades, and have known others.
Known for decades, the harm of excessive and continuous drug and alcohol use should have been a warning. Instead, removing body parts and administering drugs with no long-term studies seems to have replaced those old-timey means of making billions. Collateral damage be damned.
Doctors mostly stopped prescribing estrogen long term for post menopausal women because of risks (like blood clots, strokes). Typical dose when used is about 1 mg a day.
I met a mtf trans person who was taking 10 mg a day. He wasn't too concerned about the risk, and I didn't ask him if he'd been advised.
10 mg, is bound to potentialy cause a problem. HRT for women, is routinely prescribed for menopausal symptom, as well as testosterone as well now.
I am surprised by some of the results. I see comments saying it is not surprising. However, those comments do not look like they are from people with a strong scientific background. I am glad that the authors advocate for more serious study rather than claiming beyond their data's ability to sample. That being said, even if the studies show no harm beyond reproductive abilities, that alone, plus psychological effects are worth very serious consideration. Many people are losing sight of that.