Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Jeremy Irons? Why not BRIAN BLESSED?!?

I'm no competently musical sort, but have you ever tried to ♬Laaaa!♬at a constant(ish!) note(ish!) but change the timbre? If you can't 'slide' it, experiment with any note at two or more different offsets.  My normal mid-range ♬Laaaa... ♬can be made to sound like a lower-register straining too high or a higher-register straining to be too low. Achieve that, and then you can work out how to use the lower register properly low and the same for high.

(I understand that this is how wide-ranging vocalists fulfil the range. But having no ear for notes, at least of my own production, I've never actually tried singing outside of a usefully camouflaging group effort.  Jeremy Irons?  More like Jeremy Hardy...  )

At the very least, I can make a convincing mid-voice that sounds like a high voice trying to be a bit too low, and a mid-deep one that's a very deep one trying to rise to high. Which I more use as a useful effect in comedy voices, not myself having anything to pass for, but it doesn't have to be comedy, if you're someone who has to pass. Just practice first, and get a third-party's opinion, maybe... 

[Kansa]

I'm glad to hear things like that would change, even if it's only slightly.

I guess I wouldn't have to pass, but I would like to if I'm able to.

Thank you for the advice about the voice. I'll try training it and see if I can learn to speak higher.

[Shadowlord]

You can definitely still be cute regardless of the bone structure stuff, and fat redistribution (from hormones) transforms facial appearance quite well.

[Arx]

Voice training can definitely be effective, and it's not all that difficult. I do a similar thing for completely different reasons, due to singing. It's actually pretty similar in a lot of ways.

[sjm9876]

Facial hair stops entirely, or otherwise gets markedly thinner to what's normal for females in your family

Are you certain that this is general? Pretty much every account of HRT I've heard has said that regards facial hair there is pretty much no change? Though having said that, I'd imagine a lot of it is dependent on how developed the facial hair is beforehand, etc.

[TempAcc]

It really depends on the person. On people who generally already don't have much facial hair, it can almost stop it completely. I do have a friend who has basically not facial hair and still had to get electrolysis, though, and her face has definitely changed.

[Starver]

Spoiler: Totally non-serious responses... (click to show/hide)

[wierd]

Except the femmbot from Metropolis was a total bitch.

[Solifuge]

Facial hair stops entirely, or otherwise gets markedly thinner to what's normal for females in your family

Are you certain that this is general? Pretty much every account of HRT I've heard has said that regards facial hair there is pretty much no change? Though having said that, I'd imagine a lot of it is dependent on how developed the facial hair is beforehand, etc.

Sorry in advance if this is getting too much into BioChem stuff.

So, there's multiple Androgens (Masculinizing Hormones) in the body, and different ones are more or less potent on certain receptors. DHT is a Testosterone decay product (sort of), which activates androgen receptors more strongly than Testosterone, and stays in the blood for longer. DHT is the most significant trigger for causing facial/body hair in men and women to grow as thicker terminal hair rather than peach fuzz vellus hair. DHT also triggers the hair dormancy seen in androgenic alopecia (Male-Pattern Baldness). Not all hormone regimens inhibit DHT synthesis as well as Testosterone production, but those that do tend to see a much more significant decrease in body and facial hair.

[ECrownofFire]

Facial hair stops entirely, or otherwise gets markedly thinner to what's normal for females in your family

Are you certain that this is general? Pretty much every account of HRT I've heard has said that regards facial hair there is pretty much no change? Though having said that, I'd imagine a lot of it is dependent on how developed the facial hair is beforehand, etc.

Sorry in advance if this is getting too much into BioChem stuff.

So, there's multiple Androgens (Masculinizing Hormones) in the body, and different ones are more or less potent on certain receptors. DHT is a Testosterone decay product (sort of), which activates androgen receptors more strongly than Testosterone, and stays in the blood for longer. DHT is the most significant trigger for causing facial/body hair in men and women to grow as thicker terminal hair rather than peach fuzz vellus hair. DHT also triggers the hair dormancy seen in androgenic alopecia (Male-Pattern Baldness). Not all hormone regimens inhibit DHT synthesis as well as Testosterone production, but those that do tend to see a much more significant decrease in body and facial hair.

I've heard that body and facial hair differ quite a bit in how they're affected by T and DHT. Mainly that body hair growth is much more "dependent" on it, and so low T and/or DHT will decrease body hair to a rather large degree. But facial is a bit more tricky and will still grow a fair bit even without either hormone.

And would something that inhibits T production not inherently inhibit DHT synthesis? Just by the fact that less T means less to convert. Unless you mean that you'd still have significantly more DHT even if your T levels are at that of a cis woman's.

Either way, I'm still gonna need electrolysis to get rid of mine... Ugh. Probably gonna go for laser hair treatment first to get rid of most of it.

Personally I've noticed that my body hair is a little slower to grow. My facial hair might be a tiny bit slower too. Though it's really hard to know for sure, and I've never bothered to keep track of it.

[Starver]

(I have no acredited knowledge of the following, my chemistry-with-biochemistry classes were 25 years ago and I continued on to a different degree-level education that was neither chemistry nor biochemistry.)

If T production is suppressed, but not eliminated, and what T there is still has the mechanism to convert to DHT then it's possible that the further mechanism to 'disarm', 'dismantle' or further down-convert the DHT is throttled up/down by the T levels, not the DHT (biology being what it is and often uses slightly more complicated feedback loops than we might have designed it with).

Because if history has taught the evolving human body one thing, it may be that a slowly reducing level of Testosterone ought to immediately slowly reduce the removal of (soon to reduce by lower input) DHT, rather than wait for the production lag to kick in, all the better to oil the wheels of the human body at that time in life.

Or, because evolution tends to care less about what happens once reproduction starts to tail off, it's actually more a mechanism for the ramping up stage, in puberty. Rapid rises in T means rapid rises in DHT shortly, thus get the DHT-targetting enzymes ready now, lest that product spike in awkward ways before their moderation mechanismd detect them and start to kick in.

All of which makes sense in (most) natural bodies, but is a complication that medical intervention really needs to understand before trying a single-target artificial adjustment of just one (or one 'level') of the modern bodily 'humours'. Like messing with just one or two valves on a multi-product chemical synthesis plant's spaghetti-pipework and not anticipating a knock-on effect down a different feeder pipe that's now at a higher flow-rate or pressure.

[Reelya]

I'm just reading about a woman in California who shot her husband 3 times in the chest for cheating, and she previously had sent him text messages threatening to shoot him if he cheated.

Now they're talking about a "voluntary manslaughter" plea deal where she gets three months in prison, community service and has to attend an "anger management" course.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/niece-of-californian-mayorsays-his-wife-should-have-divorced-him-rather-than-shot-him-dead/news-story/e075e14a80452b9861988683c0d29724

One recording captured an exchange with his wife in which Daniel asked: “Why would you threaten to shoot me?”

“Well, if you cheat, that’s what I would do,” Lyvette responded.

Yeah a totally non-premeditated self-defense, spur-of-the-moment thing. It's a gender issue because gender stereotypes play into this ridiculous situation where a woman who had a history of making those specific threats on the record carries them out, but then all that's washed away by a gendered narrative: she was abused. But the text message pattern shows that she was the aggressor, constantly hounding him about who he associated with and making death threats etc. In those situations (very controlling partner who constantly hounds you about what you're doing) I think that can excuse the occasional lashing out back at the controlling partner. If a man was constantly hounding his female partner about who she associated with and made death threats, i think that would totally excuse the occasional violent outburst from the woman. Nobody should be expected to put up with that shit with a constant smile on their face regardless of the genders involved. If we switched genders in this case there's no frikkin way they'd be talking a lenient plea deal justified by "he was abused" because the woman occasional lashed out at the controlling partner. It's ridiculous.

[TheBiggerFish]

What the [BLEEEEEEEP].

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh shit, another piece of MRA fuel. "This is all because of feminism!" they'll say, as if a white man being shot is the direct result of BLM. *sigh*

[Shadowlord]

I saw someone tweet "How do you know if a guy likes you?" and while I did not reply, I thought "You know, that's a good question."

Men are still expected to take the initiative, apparently, but if a guy tells someone they're cute or w/e it's sexual harassment*? So confusing.

* or so I hear on the internets, because I don't hit on people irl, or talk to random people that I don't know and have no reason to be talking to**
** I bet parents drilling "don't talk to strangers" into their kids is why we*** all seem to need dating apps**** today
*** this generation
**** I haven't used any of said apps, because "I don't have a job or vehicle why would anyone want to date me"

That was a bit of a tangent. Sorry about that.