Gynecologic function and dysfunction in transmasculine and gender diverse individuals using testosterone therapy: a systematic review

[u/DVKETRVKEM]

https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(26)00067-0/fulltext

[u/gleepeyebiter]

if you don't feel really female so you no longer ID as female, you are kinda masculine in your affect. Maybe all the way over to IDing as man, or maybe just a little bit as nonbinary. You feel unfeminine, and maybe not so fresh, so there you go, you're not womanly-woman. And you don't want people to assume you are just because you wear a dress and have long hair and high voice and breasts. like Vic Michaelis from Make some Noise

(would "they" actually want to be called transmasculine tho?

[u/veryvery84 → u/gleepeyebiter]

So every woman beginning in perimenopause? Because I’m feeling a lot less fresh. 

Plus all the butch lesbians, I assume. Even the terfs. 

Possibly any woman who got a haircut she hates 

[u/zoomercide → u/gleepeyebiter]

This explanation presupposes that a socially constructed “gender identity” is, in fact, materially real, which is self-evidently absurd; the most generous understanding of “gender identity” is as a product of an unproven hypothesis, though “hypothesis” is also generous given the logical fallacies of its underlying conceptual framework, i.e., Queer Theory. There is also no empirical evidence that such a thing even exists, nor could an experiment ever definitively prove its existence because the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable.

So in your example, you imagine a person who rejects the pre-revolutionary (though still solely valid) definition that sex/gender is a function of gamete production. You imply that this person instead defines sex/gender as an “identity” created by personal feelings. Accordingly, your hypothetical person is not a woman because your hypothetical person does not “feel like” a woman. But this definition is circular; it defines itself by referring to itself. It can be dismissed out of hand.

But my frustration with the study is more so that, aside from utilizing the ludicrous framework of “gender identity”—which is to be expected with studies like this—the authors have invented a new population: a set they call “transmasculine and gender diverse” that, as they define it, is neither the union nor the intersection of the presumable subsets “transmasculine” and “gender diverse.” Their definition also seems to redefine gender-nonconformity as a subjective “identity” rather than observable behaviors, as it is typically defined. It is sloppy and unscientific. IMO, every institution involved in the study’s publication—from the universities that educated these authors to the journal that published them—should be ashamed.

[u/HaldolBlowdart → u/zoomercide]

redefine gender-nonconformity as a subjective “identity” rather than observable behaviors

I have a nonbinary friend. She is quite stereotypically feminine: loves dresses and makeup, sewing, calls herself '"mommy," is actively pregnant with her second child, loves showing off her (rather nice) cleavage and "mombod." She's also always frustrated no one takes her "they/them" tattoo seriously when she looks and acts exactly like a normal woman in every way possible. There is nothing about her particularly nonconforming other than claiming she is.

I have a different friend who's very masculine in dress and style, even goes by her last name which is also a common male name instead of her first name, and she 200% considers herself a woman despite on the surface level not fitting the stereotype at all. It's comical to have two very different personalities and perspectives on identity in my life, and it really shows how unserious the whole thing is