> i'm kinda disappointed.
Who wouldn't be, in that situation?
> i guess it must just mean that my body is over sensitive
> to a normal range of testosterone, i dont really know, but
> thats what i was presuming aswell, coz the doc didnt explain
> too well.
I think you're probably right. And to be fair, there's sometimes just not an obvious explanation.
> he said he can only give me dianette, or another combined mild
> BCP (cilest) to regulate my system again, and to come back in 3
> months...great hey(!) i said i didnt want dianette coz of the
> side effects.
There's probably not much else he knows what to do. After all, there must be millions of women seeking a simple answer to the same problem and no-one has a simple answer available that works every time. That answer seems to help some women to some extent, but it's not a magic bullet, by any means and useless for many people.
> yeh i guess ur right he sees hundreds of patients every week
> so no wonder he doesnt get as worked up about it as i do:) its
> just the apathy that annoys me sometimes and the tend to just
> be fobbed off with a few tablets to cure the symptoms without
> knowing the actual reason for the stuff thats happening in my
> body! but there you go.
I think it's probably more along the lines that the way he sees it, it's not a life-threatening condition -- or at least the facial hair isn't. Then he probably takes the line that there's a complete spectrum of hairiness, with women generally less hairy than men on average, but a great many women nonetheless hairier than a great many men. He's probably got a number of male patients who have no facial hair growth and a number of women patients who shave every day, if his practice is in any way typical. And he probably sees facial hair on a woman as a minor cosmetic abnormality rather than a medical problem.
> darn i wish i could just shave it sometimes! but unfortunately
> my hair is dark dark black, and its coarse, and i have large
> hair follicles, so it would just make it all more visible...i
> guess it would work better if it was light coloured hair.
It probably would, but the follicles will be there whatever happens. The same problem as with leg hair. I reckon that a few months of shaving to see how it goes is still a worthwhile experiment. Apart from everything else, it gives you a very good argument to demonstrate to any specialist you go to the actual rate of hair growth
e.g. "I have to shave once a week"
or "I have to shave twice a week"
or "I have to shave every day"
or "I have to shave twice a day"
They like things quantified like that and are more likely to take you seriously because that's the way their textbooks address the subject.
You really need a period of about three months to establish a realistic pattern of reported hair growth.