MetabolicTrash
Member
This seems like a complex subject that few can really make clear and cut sense out of it (or at least I can't).
Ray has said that estrogen can be masculinizing, as have others like @haidut in females for example.
This goes very much against the touted idea that testosterone is what makes you masculine/manly looking and estrogen is what makes you feminine/womanly (as if the process is mechanically-driven). I mean maybe it makes sense like this in a "dose-dependent" approach or manner given different areas of "effect" you could say but really it seems much more than just what is led on about "hormone 'X' does effect 'Y' to sex 'Z'" and nothing more to it.
I know many will instantly fall toward the whole genetics angle here, so it would be nice if anyone jumping straight to "it's genes" might give some science and/or insight if they feel that the result of these effects comes down to them vs. literally countless other factors from different points of view on development timelines and influences all around.
Another topic is how people throw around "growth hormones" as what shapes the face/bones (thus giving weight to the whole "masculine" vs. "feminine" appearance stereotypes), but I'm not too sure it's just as simple as that. I don't think I have ever seen any evidence of a feminine or soft looking man turning hypermasculine all-around from the effects of testosterone and/or growth hormones supplemented -- and I don't think I've ever seen a really masculine or "manly" woman turn super feminine in some sense either.
People I hear do tend to point out how "steroids" masculinize women/females easily, but it's interesting how this effect in males is not outright believed or postulated by comparison. I mean if I wasn't jokingly curious I'd say that it seems easier for females to turn more "masculine" and males to turn more "feminine" compared to the other way around -- i.e. women becoming more "feminine" looking and men more "manly" looking (could be wrong though, and I think I likely am).
Also, it is postulated that "androgenic-appearing" women have higher testosterone, but has this ever been proven ever and in what ways? I know it seems common to fall back to "genetics" when no better argument or fine-detail explanations exist, which is what I'd imagine some scientists would do given possible "dead ends" in trying to make sense out of hormones, context, and influence over physiology and components of human development. I notice leading Hollywood ladies, actresses and just more women on TV in general have strong, prominent jawlines which are believed to be "masculine" by many. Some say a strong jawline isn't exactly a "male vs. female" thing though but an optimal facial development where the jaw comes forward and has a lesser steep to its angle (a whole another subject on orthodontics/maxillofacial development/and so on).
Some women do have strong jaws and some men have weaker ones, I suppose. If that is to be argued because of "testosterone" or some other androgens/combinations it'd be nice to hear an explanation on how this comes to be rather than just "it's genes" with no explanations on how the process comes to be by the genes exactly to the finalized facial structure. Also, considering many talk of remodeling or slight/subtle changes of the face through various interventions in life I'd say I am not convinced facial structure is entirely under the influence of some "master gene" or such since it can be so pliable or malleable given certain contexts. What purpose would there be for some special genes or such to influence it heavily to where it is "blueprinted" ahead of time anyways, if the environment and hormones can always supposedly change it? Almost sounds like the same excuse as saying cancer is caused by "genes" too so you can end the discussion short and not actually explain the mechanism and/or further see any reasoning as to why it might actually NOT have to do with genes in the manner commonly believed.
I mean at some point we all might look at ourselves and wonder, although many probably just go with the idea that their appearance was formed by pre-destiny AKA "genetic determinism" which is farfetched given how ironically people speak of how easy it can be to do the very thing that supposedly is strongly "regulated" or "dictated" by the gene itself, suggesting genes are possibly little more than "influence markers" of sorts that do not actually literally "control" processes in the body and structure throughout and within the living organism overall.
But yeah, given how estrogen can possibly be masculinizing or testosterone/other androgens NOT masculinizing in different contexts or approaches makes you wonder or question what even the definition of "masculine" looking or "feminine" looking means if we have women with square jaws and men with puffy, soft faces all without exactly falling under the stereotypical hormonal assumptions or "genes" people believe must be fulfilled to lead to 'X' or 'Y' desired outcome mechanically, i.e. "high test makes you manly" or "high estrogen makes you womanly" in every nook and cranny of your being with little else seriously proposed.
As an example the stereotypical masculine man in the West at least is tall with a figure we can probably easily picture -- strong shoulders, smaller waist, decent muscle, decent jawline, and so on. But given this stereotype there's no solid evidence that just lots of androgens and growth hormones is what entirely makes up this caricature perfectly, which is likely the same with whatever mechanism is proposed as to what the "cocktail" of more "feminine" driven/stereotypical appearances comes from too.
Ray has said that estrogen can be masculinizing, as have others like @haidut in females for example.
This goes very much against the touted idea that testosterone is what makes you masculine/manly looking and estrogen is what makes you feminine/womanly (as if the process is mechanically-driven). I mean maybe it makes sense like this in a "dose-dependent" approach or manner given different areas of "effect" you could say but really it seems much more than just what is led on about "hormone 'X' does effect 'Y' to sex 'Z'" and nothing more to it.
I know many will instantly fall toward the whole genetics angle here, so it would be nice if anyone jumping straight to "it's genes" might give some science and/or insight if they feel that the result of these effects comes down to them vs. literally countless other factors from different points of view on development timelines and influences all around.
Another topic is how people throw around "growth hormones" as what shapes the face/bones (thus giving weight to the whole "masculine" vs. "feminine" appearance stereotypes), but I'm not too sure it's just as simple as that. I don't think I have ever seen any evidence of a feminine or soft looking man turning hypermasculine all-around from the effects of testosterone and/or growth hormones supplemented -- and I don't think I've ever seen a really masculine or "manly" woman turn super feminine in some sense either.
People I hear do tend to point out how "steroids" masculinize women/females easily, but it's interesting how this effect in males is not outright believed or postulated by comparison. I mean if I wasn't jokingly curious I'd say that it seems easier for females to turn more "masculine" and males to turn more "feminine" compared to the other way around -- i.e. women becoming more "feminine" looking and men more "manly" looking (could be wrong though, and I think I likely am).
Also, it is postulated that "androgenic-appearing" women have higher testosterone, but has this ever been proven ever and in what ways? I know it seems common to fall back to "genetics" when no better argument or fine-detail explanations exist, which is what I'd imagine some scientists would do given possible "dead ends" in trying to make sense out of hormones, context, and influence over physiology and components of human development. I notice leading Hollywood ladies, actresses and just more women on TV in general have strong, prominent jawlines which are believed to be "masculine" by many. Some say a strong jawline isn't exactly a "male vs. female" thing though but an optimal facial development where the jaw comes forward and has a lesser steep to its angle (a whole another subject on orthodontics/maxillofacial development/and so on).
Some women do have strong jaws and some men have weaker ones, I suppose. If that is to be argued because of "testosterone" or some other androgens/combinations it'd be nice to hear an explanation on how this comes to be rather than just "it's genes" with no explanations on how the process comes to be by the genes exactly to the finalized facial structure. Also, considering many talk of remodeling or slight/subtle changes of the face through various interventions in life I'd say I am not convinced facial structure is entirely under the influence of some "master gene" or such since it can be so pliable or malleable given certain contexts. What purpose would there be for some special genes or such to influence it heavily to where it is "blueprinted" ahead of time anyways, if the environment and hormones can always supposedly change it? Almost sounds like the same excuse as saying cancer is caused by "genes" too so you can end the discussion short and not actually explain the mechanism and/or further see any reasoning as to why it might actually NOT have to do with genes in the manner commonly believed.
I mean at some point we all might look at ourselves and wonder, although many probably just go with the idea that their appearance was formed by pre-destiny AKA "genetic determinism" which is farfetched given how ironically people speak of how easy it can be to do the very thing that supposedly is strongly "regulated" or "dictated" by the gene itself, suggesting genes are possibly little more than "influence markers" of sorts that do not actually literally "control" processes in the body and structure throughout and within the living organism overall.
But yeah, given how estrogen can possibly be masculinizing or testosterone/other androgens NOT masculinizing in different contexts or approaches makes you wonder or question what even the definition of "masculine" looking or "feminine" looking means if we have women with square jaws and men with puffy, soft faces all without exactly falling under the stereotypical hormonal assumptions or "genes" people believe must be fulfilled to lead to 'X' or 'Y' desired outcome mechanically, i.e. "high test makes you manly" or "high estrogen makes you womanly" in every nook and cranny of your being with little else seriously proposed.
As an example the stereotypical masculine man in the West at least is tall with a figure we can probably easily picture -- strong shoulders, smaller waist, decent muscle, decent jawline, and so on. But given this stereotype there's no solid evidence that just lots of androgens and growth hormones is what entirely makes up this caricature perfectly, which is likely the same with whatever mechanism is proposed as to what the "cocktail" of more "feminine" driven/stereotypical appearances comes from too.
Last edited:
