ask me about magic the gathering @groselhagirl - Tumblr Blog

Magic the gathering, edh in particular, is just like bdsm.

Everyone involved spends some time preparing for the activity and talking about what's allowed. Then it's a lot of fun but sometimes disappointing for someone when communication didn't go that well or things didn't click.

Then there's the aftertalk. Yes, babe, I really liked when you played Armaggedon to reset the game, i was really punished for not holding up counterspell. Was it really ok that I destroyed your commander five times?

Instead of safe words we have power level 7

#mtg #edh #magic the gathering

7dmom

My posts are just one facet of the beautiful diamond of my soul but it's all you care abt

comfymoth

i think the internet should transition from being so usa-centric to being brazil-centric. not cos i have any personal connection or bias towards brazil, i just think if anyone could possibly usurp america’s cultural dominance online it’d be them

comfymoth

“man i just woke up where are all these notifs coming fro—“

thatweirdnoise

neurodivergentaf

it's so wild when your parent changes when you become an adult. my dad is very cordial and non confrontational - he regularly helps me with adult stuff like changing the oil or providing insurance tips. he's always smiling when i call him on video and providing jokes when i complain about college

when i was a kid, i would have to tiptoe around his anger issues often, sometimes running quietly past his work table until he got his own place completely separate from our family, locked away for days. every so often he would start screaming in the car and trying to hit me or my brother for talking too loud while my mom attempted to calm him down as he swerved on the road. and now he, smiling, helps me with car insurance.

like oh, this is just who you are when you have power over someone, and this is who you are when you dont have power over someone. no wonder you can have a normal life, friends, work while scaring the shit out of your kids and wife. i see it now. i see why no one would have believed me. that, i think, is one of the core fears of trauma - seeing the outside of it from the perspective of other adults that brushed you aside, and understanding. of course, that understanding gives the opposite of solace; it just gives you more grief with nowhere for it to go

prokopetz

I've had a couple of people ask for a digestible version of the whole "the real problem with Dungeons & Dragons is false advertising, not anything that's present in its text" thing I keep alluding to, so here's the bullet point version of that argument:

Dungeons & Dragons is owned by Hasbro. Yes, the same Hasbro that owns Monopoly and My Little Pony.

Hasbro wants D&D to be the only tabletop RPG that anyone plays.

In order to accomplish this, Hasbro needs D&D to be a universal entry-level game.

D&D is not a universal entry-level game.

All game rules are opinionated about how the game ought to be played, and as tabletop RPGs go, D&D's rules are more opinionated than most. This is not a flaw, but it's not what Hasbro needs.

D&D is also on the high end of complexity as far as tabletop RPGs go, and it's complex in a way that strongly rewards system mastery, so it's pretty far from "entry level".

Hasbro could produce a version of D&D that's at the very least less opinionated and more entry-level than it presently is, but they don't want to, because they've determined that certain rules features which run counter to both of those goals are critical to D&D's brand identity.

They also don't want to produce multiple versions of D&D tailored for different audiences, because they want every single D&D group to be a potential purchaser of every single D&D product; they'd be effectively competing with themselves for their own customer base if the published game was actually modular in any meaningful way.

So how does Hasbro square that circle?

Simple: they lie. They insist that D&D is in fact a universal entry-level game in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and back their advertising up with sponsored thinkpieces and podcasts and such to "prove" it.

Further, they've spent decades fostering a culture of play which conceals the gap between the game they're advertising and the game they're selling by ascribing any appearance that D&D isn't a universal entry-level game to the incompetence or malice of individual GMs.

The game the rules want to produce disagrees with the game the group wants to play? Nonsense – even the rankest beginner should be able to produce any experience of play using any set of rules, and if your GM can't, they're a Bad GM.

The game is hard to learn? No, it isn't – your GM is merely gatekeeping you. This wouldn't be a problem with a Good GM.

The upshot is that the published rules are more or less irrelevant with respect to achieving the desired experience of play, because they're operating within a culture of play which dumps 100% of the work of making that desired experience of play happen on the GM.

Indeed, much of what modern D&D presents as GMing best practices are really methods of working around the fact that the rules you're using disagree with you about what kind of game you're playing.

(It's not a coincidence that D&D's entrenched culture of play also insists that it's normal for GMs to be miserably overworked and treats GM burnout as a big funny joke, then turns around and loudly wonders why there's a constant GM shortage.)

The trick is, because you're still at least notionally using the rules of D&D, the fruits of all that GM labour are perceived as the product of "playing D&D", not of the GM's hard work.

In essence, Hasbro's business model for Dungeons & Dragons is selling you your own GM's labour with a D&D sticker on it.

It's a very neat trick, if you can pull it off.

Now, at this point some readers may be asking: well, sure, but not all GMs are doormats. What about "killer" GMs who do gatekeep and railroad their players and otherwise act like complete tyrants? I hear horror stories about them all the time.

That's the second trick: these are not opposites. The GM as human Xbox and the GM as tyrant of the table both represent the GM doing all the actual work of making the game happen. The latter isn't the outcome that Hasbro wants, but it's a logical conclusion of the position they want the GM to be in.

prokopetz

I've seen a few folks in the notes respond "okay, but if that's true, why is D&D so much more flexible than most indie RPGs?", and the answer is that it's not. That's part of the sleight of hand I've talked about where the GM's labour is framed as part of the product. To break it down:

As noted above, all game rules are opinionated about what kind of game they wanted to produce. This isn't just a matter of setting (though setting-neutral games are often misleadingly called "universal" games), but also a matter of the basic structure of the narrative which emerges when you follow the rules.

The rules of Dungeons & Dragons are not less opinionated than those of your average indie RPG, and in fact are more opinionated than most. (Again, having strongly opinionated rules is not something that's wrong with D&D; it's merely something that's inconvenient for Hasbro's marketing goals in a way they're unwilling to address.)

In brief, D&D really, really wants your game to be a sword and sorcery dungeon crawl. If the GM is using the framework of play furnished by the rules at all, or if the players are responding to the rules' player-facing incentives even a little bit, it's going to squish your game into something dungeon-crawl-shaped.

(This should not be surprising; it's literally in the name!)

The rules of D&D being opinionated in this way tends to fly under the radar for a couple of reasons, one less problematic and one more so.

The relatively benign reason is that many popular RPG premises are not done any great violence by being squished into the shape of a sword and sorcery dungeon crawl.

A cyberpunk smash and grab caper? Basically a dungeon crawl already.

A special forces op in a modern military game? That doesn't need to be shaped like a sword and sorcery dungeon crawl, but it can be shaped like one and remain intelligible as what it's supposed to be.

Gritty logistics-driven survival horror? Not inherently dungeon crawl shaped, but the two genres are compatible – a game can be both at the same time, as video games like Fear & Hunger and Look Outside demonstrate. (Indeed, Look Outside's apartment building follows the structure of an old school D&D megadungeon nearly beat for beat!)

Thanks to D&D's pervasive cultural influence informing what people expect a tabletop RPG to be, as long as this kind of compatibility is present, many folks won't even notice their intended premise is being squished into the shape of a sword and sorcery dungeon crawl.

If your chosen premise isn't compatible in this way, or if the group notices what's happening and decides to push back against it, though? That's where the sleight of hand I alluded to above starts to come into play.

Remember: a Good GM™, even a total novice, ought to be able to use any set of rules to produce any desired experience of play, right?

So get to work!

i.e., just as much of the game's putative approachability is the product of Hasbro selling the players their GM's labour in a D&D-shaped box, much of D&D's putative flexibility is the product of the GM being sold their own labour in a D&D-shaped box.

To be clear, this is not militating against homebrew content or rules. Homebrew is perfectly cromulent, and certainly, some games are more or less structurally amenable to it (though modern D&D tends to fall on the "less" side).

The problem is that what we've got on our hands is a culture of play that wants to have its cake and eat it too: when doing extensive homebrew is treated as part of the GM's basic, entry-level responsibilities, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking of the product of that labour as merely being a feature of the game.

Which is, of course, exactly what Hasbro's marketing ghouls want.

prokopetz

(I feel I should emphasise for the folks going "yeah, D&D sucks!" in the notes that at no point in either of these breakdowns have I said anything for or against D&D as a game. These problems would still exist even if D&D was the best game in the world at being the kind of game that it is!)

bundleofstx

I’m sure the reaction to this one will be fun.

Weaponized incompetence wears a collar

bundleofstx

OK, so clearly I set the fucking world on fire with this one so I’m going to explain why some of this shit in here is obviously a little indefensible obviously like all of my articles. It’s a fucking vent. And while yeah, I’m obviously hyper emotional and at times even downright reactionary and using hyperbolic language (about disabilites I have) people find ways to make things useful out of them. Some of that will be more useful than others

you’re missing very personal context: but I’ll give it here. I knew a Puppy girl I knew multiple puppy girls everyone I know in my personal life and through 3 years of running a massive platform that gets hundreds of DMs a day from transsexual women who basically did this entire thing very much knowingly and very much to the detriment of everybody involved which ultimately culminated in some ofthem being harmed materially as in physically and sexually later because of it.(at least in my case.)

I will point out everybody who’s really mad about this has very much no familiarity with any of my other work in the context to put this one in so I’m not exactly too annoyed.

gossamersingularity

It's really interesting how much backlash this one got here vs. anything else you've written. It's long-winded, emotional, very clearly personal, and hyperbolic, but it's naming a very real dynamic. If you've been out in the world living, loving, and caring for your fellow trans women, you will likely have an experience at some point that maps onto the one this article describes—as either the puppygirl or the partner of one.

Being disabled or mentally ill does not preclude you from engaging in acts of abuse. When the care of others is the only thing keeping you alive, anything that threatens that support network is literally life and death. Many women who abuse others—when they recognize it as abuse—cite survival as the reason for their behaviors. They say things like, "No one would stay with me otherwise," or, "I have no way of surviving on my own." Sometimes, the rationale for their abuse is true!

The behaviors described in the article are so obviously on their face emotional manipulation tactics, and they're ones I've seen almost every disabled woman I know even cursorily well—myself included—use when we feel scared and like our survival is at risk.

If this article disgusts you, it should. We have a problem with abusing each other because of how we hinge support on romantic and sexual availability. White trans women especially have a problem with getting a taste of marginalization and absolving themselves of their behavior with it.

To those saying this is a failure on the protagonist to have boundaries, to respect her own capacity, to understand what it means to be a caretaker: congratulations, you're engaging in the ableism you're claiming this article to have. Disabled people have capacity, and they have responsibilities of care in their relationships. Suggesting otherwise casts them into the role of children, and their partners as parents. And by casting the protagonist into the role of mother, you are feminizing her. Feminization ≠ femininity. The article doesn't invalidate the puppygirl's identity as a woman. It describes a scenario in which she transfers her material status as a woman—which are the systemic pressures, responsibilities, and expectations pushed upon a specific marginalized group—onto another.

And when a polycule or a community allows for an individual member to take on the majority of the reproductive labor without saying anything, they are perpetuating this abuse. The reproductive labor of trans women is convenient and easy to exploit, and we do it to each other constantly.

For a community that loves reblogging the "You need to understand your capacity for harm" post, it's wild how as soon as you see something that hits a little too close to harm you may have caused, or experienced, you bury your head in the sand.

talestobetold

Not surprising but very disappointing to see the shitstorm in the notes. I did not read this as calling a woman actually a man, or calling a disabled person a faker, but calling someone who is manipulating the people they have access to by playing on those exact needs and impulses. The puppygirl is not a man or a faker, she is a serial manipulator. If you put preserving feelings over preventing abuse, you make abuse easy as long as the consequence of preventing it is the abuser's feelings.

I had a puppygirl in my life until this week. This is an accurate explanation of the way power flowed in our house. My puppygirl was not a man or a faker, but she did take advantage of a culture oriented around protecting the feelings of hurt women to keep her needs and wants met at all times at the cost of basically everyone in her life. You can't say no if saying no puts you in the shoes of the transmisogynist ableist cruel mother figure. Day to day, it's easier to relent than to be made into the house bitch again. If we can't address that, it keeps happening.

#I've absolutely met a puppy girl like that #thanks for the text really

fromhersoul

you relapsed on yearning again didn’t you

winged-thinged

You have to let people love you. You have to let people get to know you. You have to let people help you. Being so completely selfless that you try to erase yourself off the face of the planet and never ask for anything and reject everybody's offers of support makes you very hard to love! Unfortunately. Emptying yourself out of everything that makes you, you is not actually what your loved ones want from you, generally. They want to make you happy! They will be so so sad if you don't give them the chance. It's not all selfish. I promise.

aceynk

math was not discovered, it is created, and it carries very human aspects all throughout its current form.

logic system :: closed proposition -> }truth values{

abstraction :: unfixing the subject(s) in a proposition

aggregate :: interplay of propositions

mathematical system :: finite or iterative abstraction and aggregation

the mathematical system we have today is not the only mathematical system that could possibly exist.

we can taste this fact when underlying logic systems are changed. when true / false are not the only truth values for closed propositions.

aceynk

i think more people should understand mathematics as fundamentally a philosophical field. if you get into higher fields, like number theory, this becomes much more clear. mathematical progress becomes a significantly creative process.

understanding the abstract is so important in any higher maths, and the abstract is basically inherently a philosophical object. recognizing this allows for a more useful perspective on math as a whole.

aceynk

i would say that yes, the effectiveness of math at describing our physical world is a coincidence. i would go further to say that for any conceived physical reality there is a mathematical system that could be developed to help describe it.

i think of applied mathematics as an evolutionary system attempting to approach a description of a deeply complex observed physicality. it makes attempts at description, observes how the working description compares to actual physical action, and corrects as necessary.

since it is such an evolutionary system, i don't think it is surprising in the slightest that we have constructed a math that can so accurately describe physical reality. we have been converging towards a system of this accuracy for a long time.

aceynk

i'm not very personally interesting in applied math, abstract math is a lot more interesting to me, but i want to put to words how i visualize applied maths vs. physical reality in this context. imagine physical reality being some very complex shape, with all sorts of tunnels and spikes and edges and round bits and crevices. i think of applied mathematics as a kind of membrane that is trying to wrap itself around this shape as best as possible. at first, it's very loose. as it gets developed, certain areas squeeze tighter, deform, stretch, all to better match the actual shape. once the initial surface is mapped out, the membrane has to then find and search and squeeze through all the crevices and caves hidden within the shape.

all of this changing and adapting represents progress in the field. I hope this makes clear my thoughts about applied math being an evolutionary system. no matter what shape you imagine the membrane covering, it will be able to approach a tighter and more accurate covering.

I'm not interested in applied math itself, but i think it's important to talk about as it is likely the foundation that abstract mathematics grows upon. the state of applied math will likely always impact the resulting state of higher math, and what this higher math considers important.

inkskinned

it is tiring, being endless political just as someone existing. my teacher asks me if i’m writing more of that “feminist poetry.” a lot of it is just talking about me, being a woman, being afraid in the city. i write about walking a line, about how i am expected to choose between home and work, how each comes with a slew of its own insults; how it feels when i am wearing shorts and there are too many men outside. these are just facts of my life. someone in the comments says, “where are woman even coming up with these crazy generalizations in their feminism?”

i hold hands with the prettiest girl i’ve ever seen and someone sighs when they see me. “do they have to make everything gay?” she asks her friend, loudly, “like, do you have to force those views in my face all the time?” i can’t stop blushing. my girlfriend holds my fingers tighter, tighter, tighter, until my knuckles are white, and i let her. somehow, this is us, protesting.

my father’s cuban blood stains my skin, i think. when i am honored with a position in the dean’s private council, a boy sneers, “you only got in because you’re hispanic.” did i? i spend the rest of our meetings wondering if i was selected for my stellar academic record, for the multiple recommendations, for the clubs i lead - or if i was just a move the dean made, to make use of me. when we all take a picture, the dean brings me in the front. in the first three we take, i am not smiling.

it is odd. “i exist.” i say, “i deserve to exist.”

“oh my god,” he groans, “we get it, you’re a feminist.”

The creature: Marcus

Marcus: why are you built like the chess bishop

#marcus

moth-grrrl-mavis

Transfems read this thread

kaijutegu

Biological anthropologist here: TERFs are dead wrong about estrogen/testosterone not changing the skeleton. They do so much to the skeleton we had to completely reassess one of the ways we estimate the biological sex of skeletons.

So, before the advent of cross-sex hormone therapy, one of the surefire ways to ID a biologically female skeleton of a person who had borne children (this is important) was by looking for pits of parturition. These form when the estrogen surge during late pregnancy tells your pelvic ligaments to loosen up in order to fit the baby’s massive head through the birth canal. Your pelvis starts to s There’s hypothetically only one normally occurring biological reason for a body to give that signal, and since you have to be nominally XX (or some variant of that where you can still carry a pregnancy to term), it was a pretty solid shorthand for sex!

Until we started looking for these things outside of female skeletons, and surprise! “Male” skeletons can have them too! Sometimes these are chromosomal variants, sometimes they’re men with a high estrogen or estrogen-esque hormonal component, and in the modern era? Sometimes these are trans women whose skeletons have undergone hormonal changes due to taking estrogen.

And then there’s testosterone. You know what that does, right. It makes it easier to build muscle. But what THAT does is put new and interesting stresses and pressures on the bones, making them more rugged and in line with the skeletal structure we see in people who have had high testosterone their entire lives. We don’t just see this in trans men- we see this in older cis women too. Once your estrogen production tanks after menopause, we see what we call masculinization of the face, where the features get more rugged and robust as tissue production changes. These changes don’t happen overnight, and we don’t have good data (yet) but my guess is that when we start looking at the skeletal remains of trans men who took T throughout their adult lives, their skulls are gonna look pretty damn masculine.

Now, hormone therapy isn’t going to change every aspect of your skeleton. Estrogen in particular doesn’t do too much to the cranial bones. Your skeletal height and limb length are unlikely to change. Things like the size and shape of the pelvic inlet, the sciatic notch, and other features that are used in sex estimation, are also unlikely to change. Professional anthropological sex estimation is a complex calculus where you look at many, many features of the skeleton to make the best possible estimation of what sex the person was. It has nothing to do with gender or gender presentation. It simply tells us the end result of your hormonal composition during life. So long as you’re taking hormones regularly for a while and giving your body a chance to change and grow, your skeleton WILL undergo changes based on your hormone levels.

kyidyl

Hey, one anth to another: I'd love to read some of this literature, do you have any reccs? Cause I always figured that hormones would change things like bone density and possibly some of the shape, but after fusing and ossification they cant change things like the sciatic notch and the bowl shape of the pelvis and whatnot. Because I know that in grad school we did learn about the pits of partirition but as like an outdated thing that isn't very useful for sex ID anymore (if anyone's wondering, these are the source of that "pregnancy leaves notches on your pelvis" post that was going around tumblr a few years back. It isn't true.). Tho I'd love to see a study on the hands thing the op mentioned. Like I know a lot about the skeleton at this point and I'd love to know how that happened. Was it remodeling? Did the hormones somehow "reactivate" the ephyphesys? Change the bone ossification? Or was it all soft tissue? Because we do know that males and females have different proportions to their fingers vs palms (that's how the handprint paintings in caves were IDd as done by women.), but is it bone or soft tissue? Idk man it's just really interesting.

kaijutegu

Yeah! Fair warning, a lot of these papers use terms that the trans community no longer sees as appropriate. The language standards that the medical community uses are not the same as the trans community at large (I’m sure any trans person can tell you that!) so you’ll see terms like “transsexual” a lot.

The TL:DR from all of this: there is good evidence for skeletal changes during adult-initiated HRT. We know that these changes occur, but there isn’t a whole lot of literature about exactly what occurs. Many of these changes are minute and you may not see them in a living trans human, but are more discernible in a skeleton. We need to study this more.

Introductory Stuff

A nice Sapiens article proposing how to improve trans visibility within bioarchaeology/forensics: https://www.sapiens.org/biology/transgender-intersex-forensic-anthropology/

Why it’s important to be able to talk about the bodily changes trans people go through as an anthropologist: https://journals.upress.ufl.edu/fa/article/view/1409

Studies of skeletal development in trans people taking hormones

Bone health as a part of trans healthcare: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328208007722?casa_token=Q0yyPHewOLIAAAAA:f6VKhwq1uVylVHkVZtAX6c-t3WADx8aaymmIWtiUeci1dqVuYAMH9OXn2ofmm4T1thKw5dkutuw

Hormones and bone density: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2265.1998.00396.x?casa_token=o2l0Y9Nt4qoAAAAA:tO3_aIeM4RqBE0xyNpC8Ns8d7vipYNFzsdMdaX5ZcodO9JShKdEkh-Vw-66FKJAW13bDG2pCCKKUYeyc

Interesting paper on pelvic morphology changes: https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr.4262

(this one’s about people who started HRT before 18, but it’s still a really interesting read even if it isn’t directly applicable to OP’s situation since they transitioned as an adult)

10 year bone health study in transgender individuals: https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr.3612

Not hormones, but stuff on how FFS affects skeletal remains: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32200173/

Ok, so we’ve identified that there ARE bone changes. How does muscle affect bone structure?

Explains the bone/muscle relationship in typical cis men and typical cis women: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3189615/ (Note: by typical, we mean that their hormones are generally within the range that’s expected for their chromosomal composition.)

Comparing trans men on long-term HRT to cis women of the same age and looking at bone mass, body composition, etc: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/97/7/2503/2834495

Facial masculinization of the female cranium with age: https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/5250/NAPARSTEK-THESIS-2014.pdf?sequence=1

Cranial remodeling with age: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.12247

(The aging stuff is important because hormonal composition changes drastically with age and it’s a useful analogue, if not direct analogy.)

Some interesting reads on the relationship between sex hormones and cartilage

Estrogen and osteoarthritis (aka cartilage loss): https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/5/2767/htm

More sex hormones and osteoarthritis: https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.27.1_supplement.1053.15

Generally speaking, HRT isn’t going to do too much to the cartilage. If you think your nose looks different, it’s probably because you’re seeing it in a new context since the fat deposits on your face rearrange themselves. They’re very close to the surface, after all.

Pelvic Scarring and how it’s not strictly based in pregnancy

Oops we found it in men: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.2887

It’s also found in women who have never given birth: https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/8481/GALEA-THESIS-2018.pdf?sequence=1

Identifying transgender people within archaeology

https://miami.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-fallacy-of-the-transgender-skeleton (good read on how human sexual dimorphism... isn’t. The spectrum of traits overlaps too much.)

surgery piece: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073820300827?casa_token=jy_vbV7_fXkAAAAA:nz2d-xCUT-JoYACam3CDliKmto1UFkB8-ft837QzSpjLZJ0uiH5DHNSH7M_fG_b5XWsln3yZZKk

As for the mechanism, it’s a combination of remodeling and changes in bone density. The bones don’t unfuse, so you’re basically stuck with the same structure, just with different sizes and densities. This is more notable in trans men- they can lose some height from bone density loss if they’re not careful. It’s usually not a lot and isn’t as noticeable in living people as it is in skeletons, because there’s a lot more tissue to you than just bone! It’s the same mechanism that happens in cis women with osteoporosis. Fortunately, most endocrinologists take that into consideration these days.

Right now, most of the research on skeletal changes is focusing on FFS because it’s much more visible and dramatic. There’s a lot of reasons we don’t really understand everything that HRT does to the skeleton- we know a lot of it, but not everything- and how any of it shows up in the archaeological record. One of them is that HRT is relatively new and we don’t have the representation in skeletal collections. Another is that most of our standards are written based on studying white people, and while you can’t truly identify race from a skeleton, you can associate a skeleton with certain genetic groups based on suites of traits. By only including white skeletons in a study, you miss out on a TON of variation.

I know this is a little disjointed, but I think it’ll help as a starting place for people interested in doing more research on the relationship between HRT and the human skeleton and how we can see some of these changes in the archaeological or forensic context!

catboybiologist

Amazing list of resources, and as a biologist in training imma take a dive into these.

But a friendly reminder: the key ingredient of HRT is PATIENCE. I've already read a lot of studies, and most seem inconclusive, but all agree on one thing: time on HRT (with appropriate levels) supercedes the majority of other factors involved with feminization/masculinization. Don't let someone tell you you're "done" at one year, two years, five years.... this is lifelong. Your body will adapt to the hormones it currently has at the age it is. Let it do that, and give it the time to do so.