One of the most basic facts about biology we have known for decades is that a woman's estrogen levels are supposed to go up and down quite significantly during the course of her cycle. A cycle that starts around the same time as Puberty and which ends during menopause.
It makes no sense to me that in spite this being common knowledge doctors and even fellow trans people will parrot the idea that you can just average a woman's cycle out and as long as you stay around that average (often far below average) you'll be fine.
To me this comes from the transphobic idea that trans women and cis women are these fundamentally different creatures who respond to estrogen very definitely.
I didn't test this intentional at first but "luckily" Hrt isnt a thing in my country (trans people as far as the medical system is concerned don't exist) so I've been forced to DIY. As a result of fumbling around trying to figure out my doses without really checking levels I came to realize multiple things.
My sex drive changes depending on my dose. High doses meant for the week my libido would be very high low doses meant the opposite.
Where I felt changes (my skin stretching from fat redistribution) changed depending on dosage. Typically a lower dose meant more chest development while a higher dose meant I felt more stretching in my hips)
Emotional changes where either more present or less present depending levels
After doing a bit o research I found that all these things are natural things the majority of women go through during their cycle.
The trans people who completely lose their ability to have a libido are likely just on a dose which represents a low for them and since they constantly stay at a low they don't experience what their natural libido is supposed to be.
And on the flip side the trans people who become hyper sexual have the reverse issue. They are constantly at a level which represents a "high" for them meaning they never get a break from it and are also robbed of what a natural libido is supposed to feel like.
I'm tired of people trying to claim at x dose you should experience changes as if looking feminine is the only function of estrogen in the human body and as if "average levels" Don't already look way different from person to person.
Trans women are normal women and shouldn't be robbed of as natural of a hormone system as possible. Our current system is working backwards from the idea that trans women are just men who "want" To look like women when that's not true.
There will be a point where I try this out, but I can only do that after getting an orchiectomy, as I need my estradiol levels high enough to suppress my testosterone production. I do not want to go back to taking an anti-androgen, as I despise the side effects. But one "natural" thing I will certainly not be doing is simulating menopause. There is absolutely no reason for me to do that, and the health effects of menopause are quite bad (hence why HRT is available in the first place).
I don't believe in the motivation that "natural is best". As stated in another comment, that's an appeal to nature, and it isn't backed up by any science (this is of course due to the lack of research on trans folks). The reality of the situation is that I'm looking for the most feminization in the fastest way possible. I know that monotherapy works, so I am following the recommendations for it based on the research that has been done. That's the best that I can do with an evidence-based approach. Our bodies are different from cisgender women (though far more similar than most think), so I don't believe that a hunch based on how cis womens' bodies operate is enough to justify an unstudied hormone regimen.
This whole post reads to me as "this is how it works for cis women, so obviously that's the most effective way," and that fundamentally ignores the reality of evolution. Humans did not evolve in a perfect way. There are many fundamental flaws in our biology that are only there because we never evolved in a way that made them better. The menstrual cycle is a byproduct of random mutation that has happened over the course of millions of years. It was not created by some form of intelligent design. There is no reason to draw the conclusion that appealing to nature will give us the best results for what we want. That's simply a baseless claim without empirical evidence to support it.
But then, you may ask, why do I want to try it eventually? It's because I'd only look to do it after I've gotten the feminization I want, and after my gonads are removed. I would try it because I am aware that there are negative effects of it, and I would choose to experience those as a way to feel more valid in my experience as a woman. Not that it is not due to me believing that it would be in any way "more effective."
I do have things to say about the low doses of estradiol that are prescribed by administration routes other than injection, though. I am apprehensive to believe a significantly lower estradiol level would result in the same levels of feminization as cisgender levels. At the very least, we know the side effects of estradiol are reduced in low doses, and that brings me to question if the positive effects are as well. We also know that low estradiol levels (especially as low as during menopause) have negative health effects. This is why I will always recommend injections, as it is so much easier to get high (and consistent) estradiol levels, and you can do monotherapy with injections to avoid the need for an anti-androgen. But I am also firmly under the belief that you should not dose yourself too high. This is supported empirically, as it increases the risk for estradiol-related illnesses, such as breast cancer.
This post also seems to ignore progesterone, which is most certainly responsible for cisgender womens' libido. During the luteal phase, serum estradiol levels are actually not very high (not nearly as high as during ovulation), and it's progesterone that is vastly increased. I've noticed my libido being higher while on progesterone, and I cycle 14 days on, 14 days off. I also aim to achieve cisgender levels of progesterone, and the only feasible way to do that is through rectal administration, as oral has to deal with the first pass effect.
Besides this, I feel like this post ignores the fact that many cisgender women take birth control or HRT specifically to reduce or even eliminate the effects of their cycle. There are many objectively negative parts of having to deal with a menstrual cycle. One that I am particularly sensitive to is mood swings. It's why I can't inject estradiol valerate, as the fluctuation in hormones is too high and triggers huge mood swings in me. If I have the option to not trigger wild mood swings that have significantly negative effects on my life, I'd choose that. Mood fluctuating with hormones is a normal thing that cisgender women experience, but if it becomes as much of a problem as it was for me, that's quite unhealthy. I'd much rather choose to keep my mental state more stable, especially as I already have Bipolar I Disorder. As would many cisgender women, mind you.
As you can gleam from this comment, I'm not a huge fan of appeals to nature. Something is not inherently better simply because it's what is "natural." That being said, it is completely valid and understandable to want to experience the effects of the menstrual cycle to feel more in tune with yourself as a woman. But that also undermines the fact that cisgender women generally do not like the effects of their menstrual cycle, and many cisgender women would rather not experience it (with the exception of pregnancy, of course, but not all cis women want that either).