A more fair comparison is between their article on masculinising HRT and the one mentioned above.
"Feminizing HRT, or hormone replacement therapy, is a common treatment for gender dysphoria"
"Testosterone HRT, or hormone replacement therapy, can leave people feeling more confident, alleviate gender dysphoria, and in many cases saves lives"
Make of that what you will
Following this both describe their HRT in broard strokes, in terms of physical effects both speak plainly. However their concluding sentences are phrased diffrently
"For some people, feminizing HRT can make their body feel more in line with their mind."
"People who take masculinizing HRT have reported feeling less psychological distress, experiencing more sexual satisfaction, and otherwise help them feel more comfortable in their body and mind."
Now one difference that will immediately jump out at you is the length difference, I don't know and won't guess why that is the case.
What I will say is that one of these articles seems much more interested in emphasising how few people benefit from it then the other and, that one of these seems less willing to elaborate on what the tangible benefits are.
But something I find quite interesting is on the preceding line in the mHRT article:
"Taking HRT has been shown to greatly improve the mental health of many trans people and in many cases save lives"
A plainly stated sentence that emphasises the life saving nature of HRT? I'm sure they had something like that in the fHRT article, I mean this sentence even talks about HRT generically so they could even just copy and paste it!
They don't say even once that feminising HRT saves lives. Not once. So that's an interesting decision.
Of course that isn't the only interesting thing. Both articles do state that one doesn't need to take HRT to be trans, however I, just for fun, decided to count how many instances of that sentiment were stated in each article:
the fHRT article states that you don't need to take HRT to be trans seven times.
the mHRT article only says it once.
7 to 1
Now that on its own wouldn't be an issue if the fHRT article didn't seem to spend every other moment talking about how few people benefit from feminising HRT.
Now also for fun I decided to count how many times each article says that there is only a chance that HRT provides any benefits.
8 to 1
I'm starting to see a pattern.
humour me just one more time, how many times does each state HRT is life saving?
0 to 4
I hope this isn't to poorly written, I came into this trying to do my usual unfeeling disection of articles, but these articles managed to quite piss me off.