Thread by @FondOfBeetles

Bone density in transwomen. Let's science. 1/

12 transwomen. Baseline: T = 16.8 nM. Total BMD = 1.18g/cm2. 12 months E supplementation: T = 6.8 nM. Total BMD: +0.11g/cm2. Conclusion: no change.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

3 transwomen/E supplementation (T = 5.96 nM) + 10 transwomen/orchiectomy (T = 0.38 nM).
All 13 had higher than reference range lumbar BMD, corrected for BMI and age.

link.springer.com/article/10.100…

20 transwomen.
Baseline: T = 28.1nM. Lumbar spine BMD = 1.04g/cm2.
One year (pre-surgery; T supp. + E supp.): T = 1nM. Lumbar BMD = 1.08g/cm2.
Final (12-24 months post-orchiectomy): T = 1.1nM. Lumbar BMD = 1.04g/cm2.
Conclusion: No BMD loss.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.104…

24 transwomen, 2.1 years T supp. + E supp., then 9.7 years post-orchiectomy.
8 bone areas + whole body measured. No difference to control males.
Conclusion: “BMD results suggest preservation at all sites”.

link.springer.com/article/10.100…

(Going to pin this, and add more tomorrow - UK time).

Obviously, if this prompts serious scientific discussion, I'll be delighted. Otherwise, it's people making jokes about male anatomy (you know who you are).

This paper also shows:
Baseline: Fat = 26180g. LBM = 54449g.
12 months E supplementation: Fat = + 0.2%. LBM = - 0.06%.
If anyone has the will, could they check Table 4? I find it difficult to believe that these patients only put on 70-odd g of fat in this time.