#tried to include stuff that i didnt mention elsewhere

[applejuiceyjuice-art]

twitch cloutchase fun facts!

twitch was originally blue and green when it first emerged from justin.tv. i actually like the original branding bc it was unique looking, while the purple rebrand simplified everything, maybe a bit too much. even though twitch rebranded to purple literally 1 year in, in cloutchase, she phased from blue to purple over a couple of years, aligned w her transition. the blue phase was very “call of duty man gun weapons” kind of thing so at least the purple branding was gender neutral.

when twitch entered the scene, they were befriended by steam and youtube, who each introduced him to the two halves of the gaming sites and video sites (wow more duality imagery-) of course there’s overlap between these two things and that’s why twitch exists

at the time she leaned more towards the video sites since they were more her kind of people, being outgoing personalities who just also happened to like video games. the gamer sites were mostly kinda mean except for steam and itch (though itch didn’t play conventional games with the rest of them). even tho twitch felt more at home playing more competitive games, she felt out of place within the group socially, partially due to being in the closet and that most of the gamers were seemingly cis men that spent more time yelling at each other than cooperating

twitch was always a cyborg on her face/head since the start, like she says in the route, but she used to digitally mask it so the only indication was from her eye being a different color. it works similarly to detroit become human androids. she can do this to her other robotic appendages, too but chooses not to, now.

she was the one who crushed on youtube first because she’s always admired the big shot sites and aspired to be like them. he used to call her “starlet” because of that. i don’t think he took her that seriously until the whole falling out thing, because at that point he also lost vine and google+ like bro is not ok

the story behind the accident that took their leg changes all the time, because what actually happened doesn’t matter. the point of her being a cyborg narratively is a physical representation of her self destructive tendencies and workaholic/grindset nature. and obviously the original duality design, being streamer and chat. but in my opinion this is canon:

[bombardthehq]

Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin Jonathan Culler, 2008 / read July 20

for Saussure things got their meaning by differnetation, contrasts

but this cant give a complete account: if you say 'Could you lift that box?' it might be a request, an abstract question of capability, or a rhetorical question about how hopelessly heavy it is

so where does it get the meaning?

we risk going back to saying that the meaning resides in the consciousness of the speaker

but a structuralist would ask: what makes it possible for them to mean these several things at once?

so we account for the meaning of 'utterances', different from sentences, by analyzing a different system: that of Speech Acts

so Austin is thus repeating Saussure's move: describing the system that makes 'signifying events' (parole) possible

Austin wont let us locate meaning in the speaker's mind - there isnt an 'inner act of meaning' which goes on when you mean something

it gets its meaning through certain conventions -- if I say 'I promise to return this to you', indicating an item I will borrow, you understand that I am making a promise, but when I just wrote it you understood that this is not a promise bc it lacks the context

so Austin offers a structural explanation of meaning which avoids 'logocentric premesis' -- but in his discussion of it he reintroduces the problems he just overcomes. This is what Derrida tries to deal with in Signature, Event, Context

in How To Do Things With Words, Austun wants to get over some narrow views of language his milieu had; to have a theory adequate to statements which had been discarded as meaningless or 'psuedo-statements' for not fitting their critera [which were: either a description, or a statement of fact - and could be either true or false]

he distinguishes two types: constitutive statments (descriptions of statements of fact), and performative statements (which enact what they say)

there is a surprising conclusion here: if I say, 'I affirm that the cat is on the matt', I'm performing my affirmation. But a crucial aspect of performatives is that they can have the explicitly performative part removed: 'I will pay you tomorrow' is still a promise. But removing the 'I affirm...' gives us, 'the cat is on the mat' - I still affirm it, performatively - but the statement I make is also an emblematic constitutive statement

Culler notes that Austin's argument here is a 'splendid' instance of the deconstructionist 'supplementarism' here, in its inversion of the old formula: what had been seen as merely secondary or inessential becomes the most primary -- rather than performatives being secondary to constitutives, the constitutives are a special case of the performative

"The conclusion that a constative is a performative from which one of various performative verbs has been deleted has since been adopted by numerous linguists." [how used is this in linguistics?]

this allows us to solve the problem of a single statement having multiple meanings: its actually a performative statment from which the performative has been deleted. 'I ask you to lift the box', 'I inquire if you could lift the box', 'I despair at the box's weight'

Austin doesnt argue this and would be skeptical of it; he argues that illocuctionary force (meaning) does not necessarily derive from  grammatical structure

he instead proposes a distinction between locutionary and illocuntionary acts

so when I say 'the chair is broken' I perform the 'locutionary' act of making an utterance, and the 'illocutionary' act of 'stating, warning, complaining...', whatever performance

linguistics accounts for the meaning of the locutionary act; speech act theory accunts for the meaning (or 'illocutionary force') of an utterance

explaining illocutionary force means explaining the conventions that make it possible

we might find out what these conventions are by looking at how these performatives can go wrong, might not actually enact the promised performance [I think eg. a bigamous marriage would prevent the 'I pronounce you man and wife' from really marrying the couple]

so Austin doesnt treat failure as something alterior to performatives, accidental, not part of how they really work, but an integral part of them - performances can go wrong -- something cannot BE a performative unless it CAN go wrong [continental philosophers like him for this reason: he really grasps the 'negative' (Culler puts it in these terms later)]

this accords with semiotics: a statement couldn't signify if it couldnt be said falsely

Austin argues that performing acts - like marrying or betting - must be described as something like 'saying certain words' rather than performing some inward action which the words reflect

...enter Derrida

Derrida argues that despite saying this, Austin reintroduces this inward action as the force of the performance

Austin, worrying about jokes etc., perhaps because it would involve a description of an inward act of meaning, says that only 'serious' speech acts can be analyzed, but doesnt argue for it. He actually puts 'serious' in scare quotes, as if the argument itself was a joke [Deconstructionists love that stuff...]

so after remarking that philosophers wrongly excluded utterances which werent true or false, he excludes utterances which aren't serious. Instead of arguing for it as a 'rigorous move within philosophy', its a customary exclusion 'on which philosophy relies'

later on he describes these 'unserious' uses as 'parasitic on' the normal use; so Austin introduces a new constitutive & supplementary distinction, after getting away from one

Searle defended this to Derrida saying that we ought not *start* our investigation by considering these parasitic discourses [we feel, and have perhaps been primed to feel by Culler, that this misses the point that Austin makes his intervention by uncovering the way these 'supplementary' excess cases are core to the working logic of speech acts, and this might be another such case - although we might not feel it to be necessarily the case that *all* supplementary things are likewise constitutive, although perhaps Derrida 1. argues that *this* supplement is constituive, but also 2. that all supplements are constitutve of what they are supplemental to, as a matter of a thing being a thing, elsewhere]

actually Derrida's case is moreso that setting aside these uses as secondary from the beginning is begging the question; the theory has to be able to account for them -- Austin deals with an 'ideal language' here, not the one really used (which includes uses by actors on a stage, in jokes... Derrida here appears as an ordinary language philosopher!)

So Searle argues that its parasitic because its not possible for an actor to make a promise in a play if we didnt make promises in real life; but Culler says, why see it this way around? Perhaps it is only possible to make a promise in real life if it could be made in a play. For Austin, an utterance is only possible because there are formuals and procedures that we can follow to do so - so for me to do it irl, there have to be iterable procedures that could be acted out...

so Derrida asks: could my performance succeed if it didn't conform to an iterable model? -- for it to succeed there needs to be a model, a representation, and the actors representation of it is just such a thing

~footnote: some commentary on Searle's disagreement... he brings up a use/mention distinction - performatives use utterances, while actors just mention them. Derrida argues that this distinction requires us to go back to making use of intentionality & the inner act that meaning depends on, what we were trying to get away from: if I mention something instead of use it, it can only be because I intend to mention it...

Culler gives an example that is very ambiguous w/r/t use/mention - "His colleagues have said his work was 'boring' and 'pointless' " -- have I merely mentioned the words boring and pointless (since I'm just quoting others who have said it) or have I used them (since I do imply that his work is really boring and pointless)? To tell you would have to decide which one I intended to express.~

so, to repeat Austin's move on the core/marginal distinction that Austin reintroduces: the so-called serious performance is actually a special case of the parasitic - its an instance or reenactment of this iterable representation

so imitation is a condition of possibility of signification

eg., for there to be a recognizable original 'Hemmingway style', there must be some style which can be imitated, repeated, etc. [This seems very convincing to me]

so, the performative is from the outset structured by this possibility for iterability, citation, performance-of...

the reason that Austin reintroduces this flawed core/supplementary model is to solve a problem for speech act theory:

if you explicate all the conditions that make a particular performative possible (which is the goal of speech act theory), say-- 'I pronounce you married' is perforative only if there is a marriage license, a licensed officiary, etc. - one can *always* imagine a further scenario that would cause the performative to fail (say, they're all actors in a play...)

Austin tries to resolve this by ruling out instances where the speaker is 'not serious' - but this requires us to appeal to the intentions, etc...

so to make performatives and 'performance' coextensive is to maintain a version of the theory that can really discard intention etc., but at the cost of being unable to explicate the conditions of possibility of a given performative - because it gets its meaning only via context, and the number of contexts is infinite

... [skipping a nice section that we dont really need to note]

for Austin, a signature is the equivalent in writing of a performative utterance, 'I hereby...'

on this idea, Derrida ends Signature, Event, Context, by writing his name twice, and indicating one is a counterfeit of the other. The joke being: is this counterfit, citational second signature not a signature, because he wasnt being serious? or does it function as a signature, because a signature is signing your name?

the other implication: which of the two signatures is the 'real' one? you cant tell in writing -- 'the effects of the signature depend on iterability'

so contrary to Austin, who holds that the signature is an indication of some inner intention (assent to an agreement, etc), the signature can only funtion if it is repeatable, iterable... "The condition of possibility of [its] effects is simaultaneously ... its condition of impossibility, or the impossibility of their rigorous function." [ie. to be possible, it must also be imitable, repeatable... theres a bit of what 'difference & repetition' is engaging w/ here --

interesting to comapre w/ Deleuze here - for Derrida, something has to be repeatable in order to be at all because its just a repeatable expression of conditions of possibility. This means its negative is prefactored into its conditions of possibility -- the price of having a signature is that the signature can be counterfeited.

Deleuze is somewhat allergic to 'conditions of possibility', and also wants to find a system where the negative doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he might argue w/ Derrida here. Perhaps he would feel that it is the difference between each signature which makes it repeatable... but that doesnt really make sense to me & is probably an overly literal reading. It's possible the two only disagree in terminology here - what Derrida would call the negative is just another form of difference for Deleuze. I'm not sure.]

Culler talks about how signatures can be made without the signatory's presence, in the case of machines signing checks automatically, so that wages are paid without being physically cashed in

he identifies 'logocentrism' as seeing these sorts of things as secondary to or parasitic on direct speech where the speaker's intentions are carried out

really, such cases could not occur if they didnt belong to the structure of the signing (etc.) already

so Derrida says that intention will not disappear from a good analysis, but it will no longer govern the entire 'system of utterance'... so while I intend to mean something and thats why I speak, the act of speaking itself introduces a gap between my intention and my words. My attention is the reason I structure things the way I do, why I make use of certain conventions, etc., but my intention is not accessible in the words I use (just as we might say, if I make a necklace, my intention for the necklace to be a gift for my niece is not a property of the necklace itself; the meaning/illocutionary force of a speech act is the necklace here - a speech act is given its meaning by the conventions it uses to generate a meaning, and I employ those conventions to try and say what I intend to say)

Culler introduces the unconscious here - often we say things and do things for reasons we are unconcious of, so intention is even a little more deflated. My reasons for saying something are not entirely conscious intentions which are transparent and accessible to reflection, but a 'structuring intentionality' that includes implications that never "entered my mind"

"Intentions are not a delimited content but open sets of discursive possibilities-what one will say in response to questions about an act." [nice idea]

"The example of the signature thus presents us with the same structure we encountered in the case of other speech acts: (1) the dependence of meaning on conventional and contextual factors, but (2) the impossibility of exhausting contextual possibilities so as to specify the limits of illocutionary force, and thus (3) the impossibility of controlling effects of signification or the force of discourse by a theory, whether it appeal to intentions of subjects or to codes and contexts." [a summary of the whole argument]

what this means is that meaning can never be *exhaustively* determined, but we are still left with tools to examine speech acts and how they work, etc.

Culler gives a nice defense that meaning being indeterminable (or not precisely, finally, exhaustively determinable) does not mean that no analysis can or should be done by comparing it with Godel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics: "the impossibility of constructing a theoretical system within which all true statements of number theory are theorems does not lead mathematicians to abandon their work"

[dbzebra]

☕️ OH YKNOW WHAT AT THAT NOTE? Talk about that dbs broly movie cuz yknow. That’s a hot topic of the ages that folk feel particularly really strongly about

ooooh ive been waiting for this one. We watched this together on discord so you know my general feelings but Im happy i got this ask lol.

putting this under read more cause it gets long 

The new movie that everyone seems to love and adore.... that I dont. It was a pretty middle of the ground, meh overrated af movie. Not bad, just nothing special. I enjoyed watching it sure, but not something I have an inkling to return to anytime soon if ever. It was just ‘there’ for me. 

First, I’ll say the good stuff. The visuals looked really pretty. Nobody was THAT out of character of the existing cast (save for the ending), which i feel weird to have to even mention it as a positive, but nothing really stood out to me as a defining moment for the little cast we had besides Goku’s “youre not a bad guy, i can tell” or w/e. SUPER SAIYAN 1 IS STILL GOAT. It looked soooo good in this movie i wish we couldve kept it the whole time instead of Blue. But i will say, Blue looked much better in this movie than the series. The darker-blue with the lighter blue eyes was a nice change from instead of the ugly bluish-green the series did. Also the aura looked better. Backgrounds like the ice area and even Planet Vegeta were amazing. Action was great too. little Bulla was cute. The OST i liked (the chanting really grew on me) and Blizzard is a banger i love that song. Oh and the aritisic license they took for the fusion scene with the reds and blues spiraling together was great

Anyway thats all the positives I have lmaoo

This film includes Minus and I already went in depth on why I hate Minus with a passion and why it’s the worst thing to come out of modern Dragon so yeah moving on. But the fact that they devoted screentime to Gokus backstory which ultimately served no purpose to the story of the film and couldve been used more valuably elsewhere. 

I said the action was good, and it was, but it almost too good. At times it was so fast to tell that was going on and really lessened the impact for me. Like when they went into the other dimension or whatever, Gogeta went blue and Broly went LSSJ (idc if the name is different name, itll always be legendary SSJ to me lmao) so ast it was a blink and you miss it moment. like what? those moments shouldve been given even a little bit of focus. 

Next the cast. Goku and Vegeta. AGAIN. snorefest. no Gohan, Piccolo is just there to show them the fusion, Goten and Trunks are still kids and look like babies (and Pilaf gang is with them which is another can of worms), no Android 17, who the series established as one of the top 4 fighters on Earth. 

Do we get any of that? Nope. Just the two Blue and Bluer fucking again and again I. dont. care. anymore. Their dynamic is so boring and played out id rather watch paint dry. It was fun in Buu Saga, hell it was even fun in GT, but DBS constantly forcing this dynamic and Vegeta as the second Main Character needs to fucking STOOOP. Toei and Toriyama has no idea how to further Vegeta’s character because theyre stuck in this infinite loop. 

Vegeta doesnt want to help Goku, he mentions Bulma and/or Trunks, Vegeta blushes, and then he decides to help. THAT HAPPENED LIKE SIX TIMES IN DBS ALONE. It happened in Buu saga as well, but it organically worked cause it was the first time but Bulma and Trunks were ALREADY DEAD/ABSORBED. The look on his face wasnt blushy or pouting for a gag, dude was legit shocked. I rag on Vegeta but he had some legit great moments in the early arcs and later parts of Buu Saga. Anyway im off track. They repeat that same exact character moment OVER AND OVER. cant tell you how many times we had “my Bulma, my bulla, my Trunks, my cabba” in the Tournament of Power alone, and this movie is no different.

DO SOMETHING ELSE FFS

Then we have Broly. ohhhhhh boooy Broly. if you can even call this version of him Broly. His backstory is kinda the same as original movie 8/Broly LSSJ, but its more tragic becuase according to most fans, if youre background is a sobstory, that equals better character. NO. sure it could, but that trope was so worn out so long ago I hate it. “waaa his life was bad, hes not a bad guy” bruh i dont care thats not Broly. just make an OC if you wanna do that. but nope. gotta use the marketing! (More on that later)

People like to criticize Z Broly as “he hates Goku cause he cried” or “all he says is Kakarot” which both are false. On the first point, Broly is a psychopath. He was stabbed as an infant and left to die along with Paragus cause he was too powerful. Then that same day Planet Vegeta explodes practically on top of them. The rest of his life hes basically either being controlled or on a rampage. So that one moment of peace is “ruined” by Goku in a sense cause he subconsciously associates that with Goku. On the second point, Broly was already mentally unstable and then nearly dying, getting caught in the explosion of a SECOND PLANET and then being frozen for seven years will fuck anyone up in the head. Z Broly in the original movie was sadistic af and he had a lot of memorable moments and lines that werent just screaming Kakarot, that Second Coming made him infamous for. 

New Broly is legit a man-baby. People talk about old Broly having no personality and this new version having a deep character, but I dont see it. He acts like a child when hes with Cheelai and Lemo and then once the fighting starts he doesnt say a single word but yell. SOUND FAMILIAR?? But he gets a pass because the canon police says so right??? fuck off. New Broly is boring. Im tired of trying to make the Saiyans into ThEyRe noT aLl BaD sEe The SaIyAns ArE AcTuAlLy GoOd!!!11111 ugh i hate it. keep Broly a psycho and keep Bardock a prick. even that guy that went with Buzz Lightyear I mean Paragus was a sweet guy who couldnt fight because of course he was. At least they kept Paragus being a prick when he killed him. Tho his death was lame. 

Cheelai’s overrated af. Shes just green bulma lmao. and the fact that they included the “big soft-spoken man gets mad and saves girl from drunk lowkey-rapey pervert” trope just had me roll my eyes like dude stop. Lemo was fine? Nothing against him but didnt do much for me either.

FUCK. FREEZA. i went over this one before too so ill be quick with this as well. I hate hate hate the fact that they brought him back not once but twice in DBS, but even worse that they left him alive to do whatever tf he wants including going back to mass murdering people and expanding his army again. Goku and Vegeta just LET HIM LIVE. Why tf did they go all out and attack Broly, but not Freeza? when one of them was fighting Broly th other easily could have taken out freeza but nope we need a token villain like Joker or Skeletor cause unoriginality. Even at the end, Gogeta does a full power blast to wipe Broly tf out, but when Freeza tries to kill Cheelai and Lemo (two innocent people, feelings on them aside) Gogeta basically just shakes his finger like nuh-uh! dont do that! and then he flies off. Just let this mfer die already im sick of seeing his ass. FUCK I HATE IT SO MUCH GFGFFGFGFGF

Lastly this movie is legitimately Dragon Ball Fanservice The Movie. 

Gogeta vs Broly, which the games have been doing since fucking 2003, is the main point of this film. Theres no originality whatsoever. Minus is discount Father of Goku special, and then its a mashup of Broly LSSJ and Fusion Reborn (both of which are superior movies imo). This creatively banrkupt shell of a franchise cant think of anything new, so they legit remake an old movie, through in fusions because that sells like hotcakes, and make the animation pretty because thats all that matters.

Imo, this movie, like 99% of Super, is all flash and flair but no substance at all. At least this movie looked nice. unlike the show. 

ok thats all i got lmao

[transgenderteensurvivalguide]

Do you have any recommendations about using progestin-only birth control to stop shark week pre-t? Does this work? Will a guy get feminizing side-effects from using hormonal birth control?

Lee says:

The progestin/estrogen combination-pill is usually the go-to for stopping your period, but I have heard of people using Norethindrone which is progestin-only to stop periods. With progestin-only pills, it’s super important that you take your pills at exactly the same time every day, and if you don’t then there’s a chance that your period might come back.

I’ve also heard of people using Seasonique (a combo pill) instead of Norethindrone, so it’s worth discussing which type is best for you since there is more than one option!

But it’s established that you can use continuous contraception to stop your period safely, and Planned Parenthood says you can safely stop your period with it.

I have heard of estrogen/progestin combos also working and they shouldn’t cause feminizing effects, but your results may vary.

“The FDA approved the first no-period pill (brand name Lybrel) in 2007. And, yes, this new pill is safe. It isn’t that different from other low-dose birth control pills that use estrogen and progestin to stop ovulation. Instead of taking four to seven days of placebo pills, however, people take Lybrel continuously, with no breaks and no period. Seasonale, another extended-use oral contraceptive, limits menstrual cycles to four per year. The FDA approved Lybrel based on two clinical trials, each lasting one year, of more than 2,400 women ages 18 to 49. The trials showed Lybrel to be a safe and effective contraceptive when used as directed.” (X)

Basically, yes, it’s possible to stop your period with birth control! You may have to try more than one thing if the first one doesn’t work for you, but it’s something you and your doctor should be able to work out. If your primary care physician doesn’t want to work with you with this for any reason, you can try a Planned Parenthood- they tend to be pretty good with this stuff.

From the NY Times: For the Teen Who No Longer Wants a Period …

I’ll collect other mod answers and follower responses from similar asks about stopping periods below for ya:

Kii says:

Estrogen-based birth control isn’t “feminizing.” If you’re AFAB and not intersex, you already have enough estrogen in your body that birth control can’t really feminize your body anymore.

You’ll have to decide for yourself if stopping your period alleviates more dysphoria than taking birth control gives you. Most people see very few physical changes when they take birth control, so it won’t make you “more feminine.”

Plus, estrogen and progesterone are not “female hormones” because everyone has them in their bodies, not just females.

Unless you have a method of birth control that’s especially designed to stop periods, your periods will not stop. There are many different types of period-stopping birth control, so your best bet is to ask your doctor or pharmacist what to expect.

You should always take prescription medication as directed by your doctor. If you want continuous cycle birth control, get a prescription for that instead, but don’t skip pills in your current prescription.

Once you’ve had your first period, you can be on birth control! My doctor once told me, “If you’re old enough to have periods, you’re old enough to be on birth control.” so I would say no, there’s no minimum age to starting birth control. For me personally, it has helped me a ton and I’m very happy that I started taking it.

Addressing a possible concern that wasn’t mentioned- I was on multiple types of birth control prescribed by multiple different doctors, and no one required me to get a gynecological exam until I turned 18. Generally, unless you’re having problems with your bits, you don’t need gynecological exams until you turn 18 or become sexually active. Here’s our big gynecology post!

Also, IUDs do not stop periods for everyone, but that’s definitely something you can try.

Kai says:

I got a hormonal IUD, which will stop my periods.

(tmi ahead)

There’s no feeling/sensation that I would know anything is in there unless I literally inserted my fingers to feel for it, and even then, the strings soften over time. I had some mild cramping and discomfort for 2 days after insertion, but took over the counter ibuprofen and have not felt anything at all since. I’m pretty sure most people, if inserted correctly, won’t be able to feel their IUDs on a daily basis unless something is going weird or they’re very very sensitive.

They would need to have the strings there so that you can tell if it’s either been dislodged or fallen out, or else you wouldn’t know and could potentially not be protected against pregnancy. Definitely talk to your doctor about it. You can also get daily birth control pills, but you will have to take those every day at around the same time, and also that’s not a localized hormone so there may be other effects you may not like, but definitely talk to your doctor about it.

Speaking of, there’s a post-IUD survey here (not affiliated with us) about people who had/have IUDs.

Archer says:

So, before starting testosterone I started on progesterone only birth control and it completely stopped my monthly occurrence. In fact I’d had issues with every other birth control method I’d tried and this one, with no added estrogen, stopped it all together. On top of that, my doctor even told me to continue taking the pill up until about three months on T so I wouldn’t have to deal with my period at all hopefully.

Ren says:

To my knowledge, most long-term birth control methods (the pill, shots, IUDs, etc) don’t cause breast growth, although some will make you more ‘feminine’. But the amount of estrogen in BC usually isn’t enough to cause any noticeable effects. Maybe some boop tenderness, but it’s not enough to, like, cause boop growth.

Phoenix says:

There are lots of non-hormonal birth control options available- you just have to tell your doctor/nurse that you would prefer a non-hormonal method and they can give you more information.

Even non-hormonal birth control can help with cramps and stuff. And honestly, even if you have to use a hormonal method, it isn’t a huge amount of estrogen added to your body. I would look into non-hormonal methods first, though. Best of luck!

Emery says:

Different types of birth control affect different bodies differently. Some birth controls are estrogen and progesterone, some are just progesterone, and some are non-hormonal. 

Side effects of birth control that could be considered “feminizing” include weight gain (including in the breasts), breast tenderness, and potentially bleeding/spotting between periods. Birth control shouldn’t significantly affect your body size/shape though.

Implant birth control is usually a good method. They last for about three years typically, and I haven’t heard any horror stories about them. The implantation is relatively painless and pretty quick, and after a day or two you basically don’t notice it anymore. Then a few years later, it’s removed, and that process is also pretty quick and pretty painless. They have no serious side effects that I’m aware of, but you should consult with your doctor about whether it’s a good option for you. 

As far as HRT goes, you would probably want to remove your implant before starting testosterone, but there shouldn’t be any complications from having had the implant previously, taking it out, and then taking T. Again, though, always talk to your doctor. None of us here have medical degrees. 

You can use BC to have a period once a month, once every three months, once a year, or even once every three years, I think. Discuss with your doctor the best options for you and your body. Also consider visiting a sliding-scale Planned Parenthood for doctor’s feedback and cheap and/or free birth control of many varieties.

Fox says:

Extra estrogen in the body for DFAB individuals actually mimics pregnancy. Generally, the most it does is keep your skin clearer and hair shinier, perhaps similar minor changes. There shouldn’t be any huge changes, depending on the kind you use– but some individuals get bigger chests or hips from it, and that’s something to consider if you experience gender dysphoria. But if you’ve been on it for awhile and haven’t noticed those changes, you should be okay! I’ve been on BC for the same reason for years, and my hips and breasts are on the smaller side of average, so it isn’t an issue for everyone.

Tyler says:

I have Nexplanon, if people have questions about that then they can send an ask.

Autumn Says:

One of your fears is having more estrogen in your body. That is completely valid. But there is a cool fact about estrogen that might put you to ease. If your body has excess estrogen, it actually converts it into testosterone. I don’t know if that will help at all, but it might.

danny says:

birth control, depending on the method, can cause your body to retain water more easily. this means that regardless of your age, it can make your breasts grow. it really depends which method you are using, though. this also means that you will gain weight elsewhere too. when i was on birth control i noticed it made my hips and thighs a lot bigger, and didnt effect my breasts that much, however, it may be different for you!

Harper says:

Yes, one concern that some folks have is weight gain. But most forms of birth control do not cause weight gain:

https://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/which-method-suits-me.aspx

The narrative about The Pill being linked to weight gain is based on dubious evidence:

https://www.nhs.uk/news/medication/does-the-pill-really-cause-weight-gain/

What looks like you’re gaining weight can be from water retention. it usually settles down after a few months, and will definitely go away if/when you end up going off the pill. That said if you are concerned I’d say speak to your GP if you can and also consider a the variety of birth control that has the desired effect.

Jay says:

According to this, certain types of hormonal birth control may slightly increase the risk of breast cancer. (Warning at the link for cissexist language). This page states that high-estrogen BC slightly increases your risk, but low-estrogen BC does not. Low-estrogen is the type most people use. This page says nothing about progesterone-only BC (that I saw), so it most likely does not pose a risk either. If you did get breast cancer (which is very unlikely), you could have a mastectomy (it’s actually part of the treatment). A mastectomy for cancer is actually quite different from top surgery. Top surgery removes about 95% of the tissue in and around the chest to create a “male” contour while a mastectomy for cancer removes as close to 100% of the tissue.

Followers, any personal experiences with birth control to add?

Followers say:

shmannah said: For those who cannot/prefer not to introduce outside hormones, paraguard is the only hormone-free BC that I’ve found my research (although it can affect the hormones your body naturally produces). Nexplanon is a hormone releasing implant! Just FYI.

lilulak said: Also depo-provera. Progesterone only, injection every 3 months.

timefrozen-waterstreams said: I hope its okay to say this, but please don’t take the needle variant, if you plan to stop your period with it. I did it and it kinda messed me up? I had my period for 2 whole months and even after it stopped, it won’t come normally and its longer than before. Many peoples body got messed up because of it, most will tell you not to take it. I think the name was “depo-provera”, but I’m not sure.

anon said: for anyone wanting to start the depo shot - it may make you bleed for the first 3 months youre on it due to the thinning of your uterus’ lining but i got my second shot on tuesday and my bleeding has almost stopped entirely! even so, you should talk to an obgyn if you experience this bc it could also be something more serious. its a pretty common side effect and it terrified me because they didnt tell me about it so figured id inform!

sfodijnvwipejrnfgworijnhgfrijfn said: i’m a trans dude and i’m on a depo provera shot (basically progesterone) and i haven’t had a period in years. it’s amazing. also you can continue to take it for birth control after you’re on t if you eventually do decide to go on hormones!

anon said: I’m on depo prevera and it completely stopped my periods. It’s just a shot you get every three months (unless you’re like me and I now get it every 10 weeks because I have poly-cystic ovarian syndrome). It does have some side effects but it could help those who struggle with dysphoria since it can stop periods. :)

anon said: about depo-provera!!! its great if its the right hormone combo for you, but when i talked to my gp about it he suggested taking a pill form birth control for a few months that’s the same sorta composition as depo so you can see how you react to it. some birth controls can lead to like. nausea and depression etc if it’s the wrong composition, so its better to test it out before you put it in for three months!

anon said: trying a different version (?) of depo first to see if the chemical composition works for you is a good idea. i had a really weird experience w/ depo, it messed with my mental state for about a week after i took it. & it only stopped my period for a month or two, then it just made it rlly irregular for a while. everything is back to normal now but i wish i could have tried a version that didn’t last as long.

rammyrue said: It’s worth noting that a few of these options (possibly all, I haven’t tried Seasonale) can mess up your libido but it won’t necessarily be mentioned by your doctor or in the Choose Which Is Best For You type pamphlet (but will in the paperwork with the pills.) I’d say that info is more than just a ‘nice to know’ if getting the 3-monthly injections and don’t get a side effects list. These medications can also make you put on or struggle to lose weight, which can sting if dysphoric about hip size. Oh, and also birth control meds in general can be horrible for your mental health. You might need to try a few different options until you find what works for you :)

anon said: I briefly went on birth control for really painful periods and dysphoria, and i ended up having a nervous breakdown. for any one with mental illnesses who’s considering going on birth control for whatever reason, make sure you talk to your doctor about any and all side effects!!! because stopping periods was not worth the severe depression and panic attacks in my opinion and my doctor never warned me

knifegoth said: I use it, it stops shark week but my chest grew, then again I’m still a teen so it might have just been me

rosemarionttyler said: My sister takes birth control (she takes them so she won’t get her shark week) and she hasn’t had any breast growth

theeightandtheone said: I’ve been on almost a year and my experience is they didn’t grow on their own but when I gained weight it went straight to my chest which is :/ but I recognize that if I lose the weight it should stop

anon said: I’ve been on birth control for awhile and it actually didn’t change my body at all! No more acne. I can skip shark week whenever now! It’s made me more accepting of my non binary identity. But it’s diff for every1

alexisthegayestofgayboys said: it didn’t always stop the bleeding i did this and i bled for 3 months straight

schizo-fractured said: I use nuvaring which stopped my period completely- and you only have to change it once a month so you don’t have to think about it that much, if that helps.

patmolandcornedrue said: i got a prescription for the patch from my family doctor without seeing a gyno, but she did a breast exam, so you should be prepared for that to possibly happen

anon said: to the person wondering about the birth control patch, i have found it to work really well. i have had no side effects, and it makes my periods shorter and less emotionally taxing. i highly recommend it for people like me who have issues with pills because it doesn’t have some of the harsher side effects assosciated with other non-pill birth control methods

xfelvesandmen said: You can also get an IUD for terrible pain since it generally stops periods, I’ve personally found it has fewer side effects that emphasize areas id rather ignore (breast tenderness, etc) than pills but it’s different for everyone

anon said: having and IUD put in is really quick once you’re in for the procedure. However, getting it put in hurts A LOT if you don’t get numbing stuff/pain meds (I’ve fallen asleep getting tattoos and I almost fainted during this), and outcomes vary a lot. Instead of making my period shorter it just made it last a lot longer but each day was lighter. There is a type of pill where you don’t have to have your period more than 3 times a year. I’d ask your doctor about your options and tell them what you want from it.

narrito said: When I was put on birth control when I was 12 or so, they didn’t do a pap smear or anything like that (because I was 12) and hell, they didn’t even do one when I was 16 and given an IUD. (Mostly because both times I could honestly answer no to if I was sexually active or not). So you may have to see a gyno, but you probably won’t have any sort of uncomfortable experience beyond having to answer weird questions with an adult around.

iteraltortoise said: Be aware tho anon some people w iuds end up w complications bc of them

madrigalfan1 said: my mother, aunt, and other people my mom knows have tried the mirena and have experienced really negative side effects like having it cause severe pain from piercing into other body parts bc it moved and being extremely difficult to remove bc of tht

theboychosenbythekeyblade-riku said: I’ve been using an IUD for close to 3 years and I have found that it doesn’t cause breast growth.

sleepyanimal said: Mirena is an IUD that releases progesterone and can be used with testosterone if you are thinking of eventually going on it?? I know this because this is why I chose this birth control method– but yeah it does stop/lessen periods and is a really effective birth control method

tigerqueer said: I second the mirena- it completely stopped shark week for me! Best of luck!

narrito said: I also have the mirena, the only downside is it is vaginally inserted, so it can get kinda uncomfortable. It does take 6+ months to stop your period, but some of the PMS can linger even after that like cramping and all that.

heyhosers said: I’m on Mirena which is an implanted birth control that ONLY relies on progesterone, NOT estrogen, so I’ve heard (not 100% positive) that you can be on it and T together. Anyhow, whether you’re on t or not, I HIGHLY recommend it. It makes most people’s periods stop, so it alleviates that dysphoria for me and it also doesn’t mess with my emotions!! Feel free to talk to me abt it ~

demiiboy said: Progesterone based (ie implant, depoprevera) is okay too, according to my pp. I’ve been on depo for 4 years and testosterone for 5months. No affect on the speed of my physical transition

demiiboy said: Progesterone based birth control (depo preva) is your friend. Has no feminizing effects

socollectioncyclesblog said: Progesterone is an androgen! I’m on continuous progesterone to stop my shark week axtually and it xan make you look a litttle more masxuline in some xases

magicalfairyprince said: Just get the depo shot. Thats what I did. You get it every 3 months and its one of the only forms of birth control that doesnt contain estrogen as well! 

anon said: Just wanted to say that I’m on T but I also take a birth control pill. Its a progestogen only pill so I get no oestrogen from it. The good thing about this birth control pill is it stops your monthly stuff, or at least it did for me, so for about 2 years before I started T I never got my period which was great. For some it might be embarrassing to go to the pharmacy to get it but no one has ever raised an eyebrow. Just thought I’d share for people who are interested.

we-came-as-times-new-romans said: Estrogen based birth control and T may affect each other slightly, and you should probably not plan to be on estrogenic BC forever if starting T, but it’s ok

thelaner said: if it adds estrogen to your body in a consistent way, your body should make less estrogen of its own and it really shouldn’t change your hormones that much other than stabilize the hormone cycle

i-am-nathaniel said: I used to use birth control for my periods but the extra estrogen in my system kinda wrecked me mentally. Testosterone will stop your periods altogether if you can get on it.

soldierslightwillforeverburn: Basically from what I know the only one that won’t counteract/will be safe on T is a copper IUD.

toryinnismoved said: ive taken norethindrone and depo provera before and didnt notice any real weight gain on either (compared to gaining quite a bit upon starting T)

palethsharkstudent said: I take Norethindrone and it’s awesome!! completely stops menstruation without any physical changes estrogen-based pills would cause!!

httpcaden said: I took Norenthindrone which is an estrogen free birth control but I do NOT recommend taking it because it gave me 2-3 cycles per month and they were extremely painful and dysphoria inducing so. That’s one i don’t recommend, so if someone mentions it to you be hesitant about going on it. But Depo provara is an injection that - hormonally - is incredibly similar to testosterone and halts the cycle all together with very limited side effects

anon said:  i took norethindrone before i took the depo provera. it worked fine (i still bled but even now i still bleed after a year on T and two years on the depo so thats more of a me thing, i think?) but my issue with it was that i had to take it twice a day and if i missed doses frequently my period would hit me Hard (w/ all the lovely cramps and gastro trouble) so if you dont have issues with remembering to take medicine every day it should be fine, but i recommend the depo provera

radical-boy said: Someone I know says the shots stopped her period completely so you could ask about that

crystal-jem said: I’m on the depo shot and have been for about a year, and its awesome. I don’t have a period or cramps at all, and mine were so severe they would make me throw up. Its a shot every three months on your butt cheek, and if you want to do it yourself you can even ask for a needle and syringe with your prescription

Lukas said: If there are any trans guys out there who are looking into BC pills as a way to control or manage their monthly “shark week” but aren’t sure what to use, I would personally recommend Seasonique. Seasonique comes in 3 month packs, which means you get your period only 4 times a year. It also means fewer (and possibly embarrassing) trips to the pharmacy. If you do experience spotting, you can talk to your gyno about adjusting your schedule. I have been using it for about a year and have experienced only minor spotting, my chest did not grow at all, I’ve not had any changes in sex drive or had any changes in weight or mood. While it might not be right for everyone, I know many people who’ve been very satisfied with it; again, it’s something to work out between you and your doctor/gyno.

tangible-crisis said: Cryselle has been really helpful for me. It’s a very small amount of hormones so there is not many feminizing effects. It worked great for me

anon said: I take cryselle (a 28 day pill) for 9 weeks instead of 3 and then take one placebo week! This was prescribed to me as I wanted fewer periods for blood loss reasons. I had tried a pill specifically made to be taken for 9 weeks but the dosage was too low so that’s why I take mine like I do! I can’t say there are any different side effects than the ones I already noticed taking it normally

anon said: i’m a pre-t trans boy on birth control and it hasn’t changed anything about me except made me healthier and more able to do things when i’m menstruating! the chemicals in birth control (well the ones in mine anyway) are actually the same ones used in oestrogen blockers, so you’ve got nothing to worry about!

anon said: I’ve been on birth control, and although it affects everyone differently, I can offer some advice. LoLoestrin FE has been really good for me. I’ve had heavy periods too and it fixed that. Ashlyna, the three month stuff, made my boobs grow though

anon said: The birth control I take is called LoLoestrin. It has really low doses of estrogen and progesterone, and hasn’t given me any side effects while being really effective at managing my period and cramps. I recommend it for afabs who want to use BC!

space-boy-3000 said: This worked well for me for a while but the low dose may not be enough for you, I had to switch to a higher dose because it didn’t have any effect

courteous-lamp said: I take LoLoestrin too and I had side effects. I got a lot of acne and unpredictable mood swings. I’m generally extremely sensitive to medication though

chaeslife said: there’s this one implant that they can put in your arm called Nexplanon that can lighten your period and for most people it will stop completely.

pimptier said: Get the stick! I’ve had my nexplanon stick for a year and it completely rids me of my period and almost all of its symptoms!! Plus there isn’t a pill you have to take every day (mines good up to 3 years but I’ve heard of some good up to five!)

anon said: I’m a cis girl and I got the nexplanon implant. It can stay in your arm for 3 years. After the bruise goes away you hardly notice it’s there. (For most people) it stops your period. It’s great if you can’t remember to take pills.

superbananatime said: My doctor gave me these pills I would take only when I get my period! It makes it not as heavy flow and usually I have like 10 day periods also but it was like seemed like 5 days.

frogprincesstsuyu said: I’m not sure what your pills look like, but if there’s a 4th row of different colored pills (they may be reddish brown, yellow, or another color, or you may only have 3 rows) then you skip that row and immediately start the next pack. This means you pick your pills up one week earlier. The 4th row is placebo pills that don’t contain hormones, so you get withdrawal bleeding. If you skip the placebo pills, then you won’t have the withdrawal bleeding/ “period”.

pageollie said: my best friend takes tri-montly birth control and just skips the week where the pills are just placebos. they’re transmasc and their period causes extreme dysphoria as well as physical pain/issues. they have their period every 6 months I believe?

we-came-as-times-new-romans said: There is a 3-month cycle pill. Please don’t misuse a 1-month prescription without talking to a doctor about it.

physicsmagics: Yeah, some people take the active pills for the entire month instead of taking the sugar pills for a week out of the month, which is what causes you to get your period. It depends on why you’re on the pill. My dr wanted me to do that for 90 days due to painful periods

anon said:  I’m on a progesterone-only pill called Desogestrel, and for me it’s been great because: A) it has completely stopped my menstruation B) there’s a 12-hour window for taking it each day, so it’s still effective even when you forget to take it at the usual time (great for my ADHD self) and C) I’ve had no noticeable side effects at all for the whole 2 years I’ve been on it. Not started T yet, but multiple doctors have said the pill should still be effective once I do. :)

anon said: For ppl in the UK I just went to my GP and said “my period is giving me awful gender dysphoria can you prescribe me something to stop it?” and she just gave me a choice of 2, discussed the difference and gave me a prescription for the one I chose! No touching or further explaining was needed :)

anon said: Some doctors will refuse to use continuous birth control to stop your periods. If you get one like this, ask about Seasonale or another similar birth control. It doesn’t stop your periods completely, but it makes it happen every three months.

anon said: In my experience ( and those I know of who also take it) it doesn’t make your body more feminine! You can skip it for ~2 months, shorten the time span & how heavy it is, and virtually no cramps, headaches, other icky stuff.

anon said: My doctor put me on Jolivette, which is a non-estrogen birth control pill. (I wasn’t out, but estrogen birth controls can cause blood clots and my family has a bad history with those kinds of things) It doesn’t make the cramps go away 100% but it helps a LOT (before, I was missing school two days at a time because I would sometimes black out)

sanguis-ripam said: You should def stay in check with blood work to watch your hormone levels, and like if one doesn’t work for you because of mood or physical shit tell your doc. A lot of AFAB people have to experiment with which birth control is best.

trans-chat said: Liam says: I was on birth control for a while and the only thing it did was lower my sex drive and control my periods a bit. You probably won’t gain weight in any way unless you’re on something really strong. Another mod, Lukas, has been on birth control for a while and hasn’t noticed anything other than a lower sex drive, less acne, and a slightly lighter period. I would give it a try and if you don’t like it switch. There are shots you can get every three months that completely stop your period so maybe talk to your doctor about that.

[nb-jesus]

this post is in regards to this post. it isnt letting me reblog the post from OP so im either blocked or my computer is funky. so, ive made my own post. @nondysphoric-enby here is my response :D

1) what does my age have to do with anything?

2) youre making me out to be condescending when i never was.

3) *cracks knuckles* here we go

this is what i presume to be an editorial on the credibility of the DSM 5 and the ICD-10. it features both pros and cons. its own sources are listed on the bottom of the page.

this is an opinion piece on the credibility of the DSM 5. its written by a man with a doctorate. if you look at the right side of this page, you can see he was the chair of the DSM 4 task force and is a professor at Duke.

this is a scientific study on the credibility of ICD-10 diagnoses. as mentioned in the editorial i linked, the ICD-10 is not a mental health diagnostic manual in itself, but features a chapter for mental health disorders instead. its used by more professionals than just psychiatrists and therapists, so it has to be general with its wording so that other professionals can understand it and are able to use it to diagnose mental disorders, which the editorial also brings up is a thing that happens.

it is true that Lamba legal says not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, but the rest of the questions on the FAQ concern gender dysphoria and transitioning. Lambda legal, as far as i can tell, is a nonprofit organization that provides legal counsel for LGBT individuals. this being so, they can only really provide legal counsel to dysphoric individuals seeking healthcare (such as HRT and surgeries) because nondysphoric transgender people probably wont transition. to be gender nondysphoric means to not experience distress because of ones sex, right? is a nondysphoric trans person transitions, what is the point? if them transitioning “makes them more comfortable” then i would think they probably had dysphoria, but just didnt know so. transitioning exists to make ones body reflect ones gender, right? but if a nondysphoric trans person transitions while still comfortable with their natal sex, does that not mean they would develop dysphoria over this? there are a lot of cases of detransitioners who thought they were trans, and tried to transition, but ended up having to stop because they ultimately developed gender dysphoria. if you look at some radfem blogs on here, you can see they do indeed exist. my point is, why is a legal firm credible if they only provide services (which i would assume means only legal counseling a.k.a lawyers) to dysphoric trans people? correct me if im wrong, but legal counseling means “ A counsel or a counsellor at law is a person who gives advice and deals with various issues, particularly in legal matters. It is a title often used interchangeably with the title of lawyer.” according to google. let me reiterate the point of the definition, “a person who gives advice and deals with various issues, particularly in legal matters.” if theyre a credible source, would they not provide services to all transgender people? that question leads back to the question of why would nondysphoric transgender people transition if they are not distressed by their sex. do you see my point?

this is a report on the APA’s involvement in CIA torture after 9/11. this is an article about five (5) APA psychologists and their involvement in forced feeding tube feedings on prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. this is the APA’s code of ethics. it says in the general principles that “ Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm.” there were revisions to this code in 2010 and 2016 as stated on the page itself. however, does this mean they did not believe this statement--and the others in the rest of the sections--before? to me, it appears not, because of the aforementioned links in this paragraph.

it is true transequality.org says that “ Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. On its own, being transgender is not considered a medical condition. Many transgender people do not experience serious anxiety or stress associated with the difference between their gender identity and their gender of birth, and so may not have gender dysphoria.” i agree with the fact that transgenderism in itself isnt a medical condition. its gender dysphoria that is; more specifically, its a neurological condition. transgenderism is the symptom of gender dysphoria. that being said, my points in the paragraph about Lambda legal stand even more starkly.

it is also true the NHS gender clinics say “not all gender diverse people experience gender dysphoria”, but in the next paragraph, they list “androgynous” as a diverse identity they experience in their clinics. androgynous is a presentation descriptor label. cisgender people can be androgynous. they also list “gender neutral” as a diverse identity people experience in their clinics. gender neutral is very vague in meaning. do they mean agender people? androgynous people? cisgender people who just dont care what people call them? and so on and so forth. they use the Interim Gender Dysphoria Protocol and Service Guideline 2013/14 and the The Royal College of Psychiatry Good Practice Guidelines for the Assessment and Treatment of Adults with Gender Dysphoria 201 to help care for their patients. the Interim Gender Dysphoria protocol has a graphic early in the many pages that shows if someone does not get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, they are discharged or sent elsewhere for other treatment. it also shows that if a diagnosis couldnt be made, then more observation is done, and if no diagnosis is made, they are again discharged or sent elsewhere for other treatment (the graphic is on page 7). the Royal College of Psychiatry does indeed say not all “gender variant” people or gender-non-conforming people experience gender dysphoria (they say this on page 14). they never explicitly say transgender or transsexual in that paragraph, only stuff about diversity. “gender variant” doesnt make sense to me, personally, because transgender/transsexual are not dirty words. that is my personal opinion, so i dont know how others feel about it. in terms of counting gender-non-conforming people, that doesnt make sense either. cisgender people can be gender-non-conforming, and they dont need services from a gender identity clinic.

the WHO revised their definition of gender dysphoria and moved it from a mental health condition to a sexual health condition back in 2018, if i can recall correctly. i cant find the exact page where ive seen them say gender dysphoria isnt needed to be transgender, but i did find this. on that page, they say gender is the socially constructed characteristics of men and women. if gender is a social construct, which is what theyre saying but in simpler terms, then why is it so important for people to transition and alleviate gender dysphoria? if its to make them more comfortable in their bodies, why do the terms transgender/transsexual and gender dysphoria even exist, if gender is a social construct? would treatments for the discomfort transgender people experience with their bodies just be something else? or would there even be treatments at all? i know some of the questions ive asked in this whole thing can seem like reaches, but i really just want to stress the ideas that some people may think of if they hear of these things. to my knowledge, the WHO also listed gender-non-conforming people in their definition of transgender. though ive also heard they later say on that page that not all gender-non-conforming people are transgender, its weird they would even include it in the first place.

side note: terfs say gender is a social construct, too.

taking sources at face value (”why medical professionals shouldnt be trusted and how they dont actually mean what they said”) isnt really... the greatest thing to do. a common point yall tucutes make is that only you know your gender. if thats true, then why do yall take what medical professionals say about being transgender as 100% fact?

calling transmeds the “anti-vaxxers and flat earthers of the trans community” is gross. transmeds havent killed people because we havent gotten vaccinated.

if you respond, id appreciate it if you could be civil <3 thank you! i look forward to getting your response :D