A growing number of women are turning to testosterone treatments, seeking a remedy not only for declining libido but also for a range of symptoms associated with aging and perimenopause. This trend, fueled by anecdotal reports circulating on social media platforms like TikTok and championed by figures like Halle Berry and Real Housewives stars, has sparked debate about the efficacy, safety, and ethics of using this traditionally male-associated hormone for women.
While testosterone plays a crucial role in both sexes, its production naturally diminishes with age in both men and women. In women, this decline can manifest as decreased libido, lower energy levels, and changes in mood. Though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasn’t approved testosterone therapy specifically for these menopausal symptoms, some women are seeking it “off-label,” often from private clinics rather than traditional healthcare providers.
The FDA hesitance stems primarily from a lack of robust long-term studies demonstrating both the effectiveness and safety of testosterone treatments for women. A notable study by Procter & Gamble in the early 2000s showed promising results regarding libido improvement, but it coincided with another study raising concerns about breast cancer risks associated with menopausal hormone therapy. This triggered a widespread caution surrounding hormone therapies for women, ultimately leading to stalled FDA approval.
However, this hasn’t deterred many women who are finding testosterone online and through alternative clinics. Journalist Susan Dominus, in her recent New York Times Magazine article, documented the diverse experiences of these women taking testosterone at higher doses, sometimes exceeding levels naturally experienced even during their youth. Some report profound benefits: increased libido, heightened energy, improved muscle mass, and a renewed sense of vitality.
But there are also notable downsides reported by some users: hair loss, unwanted facial hair growth, and mood swings ranging from irritability to aggressive outbursts.
Dominus emphasizes that these experiences often unfold in the absence of clear medical oversight, with many clinics operating outside FDA regulations and insurance coverage. This creates a financially precarious situation for women who are frequently encouraged to purchase costly pellets or creams without adequate long-term assessments of potential risks and benefits. The lack of robust clinical trials further complicates the issue.
Adding another layer to this complex conversation is the emerging connection between high doses of testosterone in women and gender affirmation practices. Dominus points out that some conservative women, particularly those seeking a more “wifely” persona, find resonance with the masculinizing effects of testosterone despite its traditional association with male identity. This intersection underscores the broader societal discussions around gender norms and the diverse pathways individuals may choose for self-expression and bodily autonomy.
The burgeoning trend of women using testosterone demands further exploration. As scientific understanding evolves and individual stories gain greater visibility, it is crucial to foster open dialogues that address both the potential benefits and inherent risks associated with this increasingly popular but largely unregulated treatment.
