Ok so someone educate me about neo vaginas **Title edited by MNHQ at the OP's request**

And here are some statistics on orgasmic capability, taken from multiple studies:
transresearch.info/tag/clitoroplasty/

Personally, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the results of trans genital surgery can have much sensation.
Having had a c section, which is just a simple cut and sew back together, and having experienced the (very common,) adhesions, scar tissue and numbness of damaged/dead nerves, I cannot believe that completely taking apart the genitals and surgically cobbling bits of them back together would allow for full sensation.
Interestingly (and horrifyingly,) enough, the rate of neoclitoral necrosis can be very high.
The success rate for the creation of a clitoris for trans women greatly varies. The most common cause of failure is the necrosis of the tissue from lack of blood supply. The greatest non-lethal health risk is damage to the pudendal nerves that greatly reduces the chances and intensity of orgasms when severed.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoroplasty
This is an extremely informative article on the more common procedures, with lots of information on the care of the neovagina.
transhealth.ucsf.edu/trans?page=guidelines-vaginoplasty
The things that stuck out to me were that
You should use soap and water to cleanse the vaginal canal after each dilation.
Which of course is completely contrary to what should be done for an actual vagina.
The issues with using colon
Since the secretion is digestive there is a risk of malodor and frequent secretions, and secretions are constant rather than only with arousal. Wearing panty liners or pads may be necessary for the long term. Bacterial overgrowth (diversion colitis) is common and may present with a greenish discharge, treatment includes. The bowel lining is also not as durable as skin. Use of intestinal tissue also places the vagina at risk of diseases of the bowel
That the flora in either colon or scrotal and penile neovaginas are very different to an actual vagina (of course) and douching is often recommended to cleanse it.
Lactobacilli were found in only 1 of 30 women, and candida was not found. There was no correlation between the presence of vaginal symptoms and any one particular species.[1] These findings suggest that vaginal discharge and odor in transgender women is unlikely to due to common causes in non-transgender women such as bacterial dysbiosis or candida; indeed the lack of a mucosa or low pH are consistent with this study's findings of rare lactobacilli and no candida. In most cases discharge is most likely due to sebum, dead skin or keratin debris, or retained semen or lubricant.
And I have read trans males saying that hair removal via electrolysis is unnecessary as surgeons scrape the scrotal skin that will be used internally, but this in fact says
Scrotal skin has abundant hair follicles and it is possible to transfer skin with sparse hair growth into the vagina unless hair is removed in advance. Some surgeons rely on treating all the visible hair with aggressive thinning of the skin and cauterization of visible hair follicles at the time of surgery. However, since hair grows in stages this approach might not adequately address dormant follicles. The most reliable method of preventing hair growth in the vagina is to perform scrotal electrolysis
Sorry for the long post!

Rachel

Yes, I realise because I put in quotes it looks like I was quoting you. That wasn't my intention, sorry! Frankly I found it quite hard to describe in one sentence what you had said. But certainly an orgasm that goes from your chest to your knees was it? Sounds 'better than ever'.

"I'd rather leave it to medically qualified professional healthcare workers". That's very different to your accusation that my thinking would lead to any losses in children.

Yes, when the medically qualified healthcare workers appear surprised that giving Jazz Jennings puberty blockers had done him 'no favours down there' (and that is a quote), then my faith in their, let's call it altruism, remains pretty low.

Jazz's surgeon seemed to have no bloody idea that keeping the child in a prepubescent state would mean he has little to no sexual function.

Jazz, at 17 years old, actually asked his father quite how much of his mother's vagina he sees during sex. Whilst they were all having tea.

Does that sound like a family who have been well informed?

Thank you Rachel for taking the time to reply. I feel for anyone with genuine GID. It must make life very hard at times. I'm glad for you that you're pleased with your surgical outcome.

Hi Rachel - thank you for your reply.

I tried to be clear in my post that I was talking about how the words and explanations sounded to me, within the longer historical context of how women's bodies have been viewed in a patriarchal society.

Men and women were not viewed as incommensurately different prior to the modern period, they were viewed as alike, with all the same bits, but arranged differently, with men being the 'perfect' form along a scale of perfection (thus women were lesser; this meshed with Christian views which saw women as subordinate).

So when you (or any of your cited sources) talk about fetal development being the same (up to a certain point) or labia skin being cosmetically the same as a scrotum (apart from labia being open and scrotum closed up), these are the historical ideas I find invoked. It doesn't matter if you mean this (and I was clear that I did not think this was your intention), the bio-medical/pharmaceutical model today, that you can 'create' the other sex by arranging the components differently, is resonant for me of this pre-modern belief.

It is not about me not understanding the science, so no amount of explaining in basic terms will help. It is about what your explanation, however intended, brings to my mind in a longer historical and cultural context. That is a different thing.

aishana, you say that your former patient should be considered female, apart from the fact that they were sadly dying from a condition that mainly affects males?

I think a gynaecologist, amongst many other clinicians, would have no problem at all visually identifying a male pelvis from a female pelvis.

Sex based differentials in health, exist at every step of the patient journey (to be NHSy about it): disease aetiology, disease onset, progression, therapeutic regimen etc. From a "gender" point of view, behavioural differences between men and women are known in how they access healthcare; the manner in how clinicians treat those patients; how drugs are prescribed, insurance policies etc. Because of this, research into how trans people access healthcare, not just for gender services, is of course important. But as you are speaking from clinical experience, I don't see why you would view a post-op patient as female because their genital surgery and reconstruction is of a high standard.

If Trans wish to believe anything otherwise, so be it, but I'd refer them to their signed "consent form" (I have mine here).

How nice for you. Would that we could dismiss the lies our children are being told so easily.

Hi all!
Datun - I did wonder over the continual use of the word prostrate - Oh bugger!! I know how to spell "prostate", so I've no idea where all those extra R's consistently came from. Not even pirates' prostates (Lots of 'Arrrrs')!

a post op adult, who claims 'better than ever' sexual function - Errm. No. I don't recall ever saying it was 'better than ever'. I did say it was very different. Maybe I've read your post wrong, but it seems that you took something I didn't say and ran with your own assumptions.

How can an adult who advocates the joys of surgery from a fully formed set of genitalia, even think of supporting something leading to such a loss in children? - Well - I'm not sure that is the case (not that I'm particularly skilled in the area of Urological Surgery). There are a number of techniques that can be used should the penile skin be insufficient. One case may be in the circumcised male - without extra work, the neo-vagina would be very short. Just to be clear - and to go back to what I originally said - "I'd rather leave it to medically qualified professional healthcare workers". That's very different to your accusation that my thinking would lead to any losses in children.

IcedCocoa - make a man, genitally speaking, out of a woman, genitally speaking, yes, that is how it seems - OMG - No! That's not what I meant at all. I'm really sorry if that's how it came across - not my intention at all. This can be the difficulty in text-based discussions. Sex it set at conception and is unalterable. Developmental things will happen during gestation and cells will become certain things. Male and Female fetuses will go down different paths from about week-8 - with the onset of fetal testosterone. Things will become one thing in males and another in females. I was certainly NOT insinuating that the entire vagina is some mal-formed penis - I'm really sorry you read it that way. A genetic male without sufficient testosterone during this critical period will end up with feminised external genitalia, while genetic females with abnormally high testosterone in the same period are born with external genitalia that are masculinised [Ref1]. It was this development - as a difference between male and female development that I was referring to. The cells that could have been labia in a genetic female actually become the scrotal sack in males. They are different - one is most certainly NOT a "derivation" of the other. Perhaps this video explains the different development better, and how the scrotum of boys forms needs to "close" the membrane (which separated in girls) in order to form the scrotal sack (hence the "seam"). Does that help?

My labia are not an opened up scrotum - Of course not! You never had a scrotum and I never had labia. What I have is skin that started out cosmetically the same as labia and it has been used to create something that looks once again like labia now.

BarrackerBarmer - easily recreated with some modifications and manipulations of flesh. - I know that's how a lot of the very vocal Trans see things. However, I hope don't come across like that - again, not my intention. Obviously, if someone were to have been born without a hand (say) and had one "reconstructed" - that would not an actual hand make! However, a "hand" is very, very different than something which has been used to horribly oppress, repress and vilify half the population!

thebewilderness -There is a popular myth that we are all female in the womb/uterus in spite of the fact that every cell is either xx or xy. - exactly. We all started out visually the same up to 7-8 weeks (see linked video above, 24sec). But that's all - visually. Every cell of a fetus, baby and adult screams "male" or "female".

There is a sad belief among some trans identified males that if they have the male organs removed they will be left with female organs. - This is quite true. However, this is more to do with capacity to understand, mental awareness and expectations. I have the consent forms and pre-surgery information from both Charing Cross hospital and Brighton hospital. I can assure you that the medical profession makes it very (burtally??) clear what Trans are getting from surgery. If Trans wish to believe anything otherwise, so be it, but I'd refer them to their signed "consent form" (I have mine here).

Geronimoleapinglizards - would you like to actually be female? - Yes. Of course. Can I refer to my earlier post on Page 6 of this thread: "I don't want to be Trans - it's horrible. Those idiots who are just playing dress-up have no idea what acute Gender Dysphoria is actually like. It's horrific. It's nothing to be "proud" of." Would a blind person wish to be sighted? Would a disabled person wish to be able-bodied? Thing is - those with fetishes for blindfolds or wheelchairs don't (generally) endanger, invade or invalidate half the population!!
I accept my Transition as being the best I'll be able to have. I'm realistic about it and I get on with my life. I do OK at work, in social situations and with family, etc. Upon transitioning, you accept the lot (well those with genuine Transsexualism, do). You don't get to "pick and choose" aspects of Womanhood (this is where I have major issues with those playing dress-up or undergoing "partial-transition" because they want boobs, but still want to wank off). There's nothing inherently exciting about being a woman (which is why I really don't get the male fetishisation of it). To be honest, lots of it are a right pain in the arse - and I only have a small part of it. But yes - I'd prefer to be gentically female; an adult woman - with all that it entails. It's wanting to be female in every way possible - not just "cherry picking" the "best" bits. Would I have wanted to be pregnant/give birth? Yes. Breast feed my own baby? Yes. Do I like sexual harassment/assault? Of course not! Do I receive it (as a woman would - not as trans)? Yes..............

Right - it soon gets round to Sunday night and I need to get things sorted for a week away next week. Keep safe everyone.

Ref:
[1] "Cordelia Fine - Delusions of Gender, Ch9-The 'fetal' fork".

Tut tut Maid, don’t you know they’re superior to natal vaginas in all those respects?

‘Look’ is one thing. What about smell, taste, response to tongue/finger/penis?

Ok, as an HCA i have cared for a (sadly dying & unconscious) transwoman.
She'd had the op 20 years prior, & this was 10 years ago I looked after her.

I washed her & I can honestly say that from outside appearance down below she looked female.

No- one seeing her would guess she was not originally female.

Obviously for dignity reasons I did not look at her down below area anymore than I had to in order to wash the lady. Same as with any patient.

I actually felt extremely sad for her as her sons had disowned her, and she was dying of a condition that mainly men die of.

She was being nursed in a side room on her own both because she was trans & because she was dying.

So I have no idea, other than from reading this thread, about the problems with neo vaginas are that trans women have to cope with, in fact I've never actually thought about it before.

FWIW I believe that once a transwoman is post op she can be considered female but not when she is pre op. Everyone I know that I've spoken to about it agrees.

Btw I say 'down below' even though I'm a carer, I know its a bad habit and technically I should use the words vulva, vagina, penis etc but at work I find euphemisms save everyone from embarrassment & I know I'm definitely not the only HCA / nurse who doesn't use the correct terms!

Rachel can I be really nosy and ask, would you like to actually be female? Is it enough for you to look at your body and see something resembling a vagina? Would you willingly embrace something like, I don't know, endometriosis and heavy periods in exchange for having a real vagina? I'd imagine that's a hard one to know but I'm just interested whether you just wanted rid of your penis or if it went further than that.

I am fascinated with transsexuals with genuine GID if it's about sexual functioning and your physical body alone or whether it also encompasses wanting to be treated as female in every way possible (i.e is it even obvious to men how women live and what they have to put up with as they develop and age)

You make an important point, Iced.
There is a popular myth that we are all female in the womb/uterus in spite of the fact that every cell is either xx or xy. Trans advocates have found this myth very useful as they evangelize.
There is a sad belief among some trans identified males that if they have the male organs removed they will be left with female organs.
It is easy to believe myths when they are exactly what you want to hear about yourself.

Totally agree, iced.

I agree. But since women aren't taught about their own bodies, it's unsurprising that men are even more ignorant about us. I don't blame people for ignorance. Just for perpetuating it.

It is bobbins, is what I meant

That’s not to say much of the rest of what she posted is basically bobbins, but that’s not her fault. And it just goes to show the lie that is being sold.

I think part of why I found Rachel’s post so refreshing is the fact she acknowledges that what she has is a facsimile.

There’s a real tendency with some trans and their allies of thinking of a vagina as purely a fuck hole. It’s complete and utter misogyny.

Brilliant post, Iced.

It's as if as if men think we are merely a playdough version of a man. You know, pull off the penis, poke a hole in, that's about as much as there is to a woman, right?

Wrong.

Males and females develop differently in utero, yes, but our diverging paths are irreversible. You can't turn this clock back.

It may be convenient for men to reduce us to external appearance - and a hole.
They disregard the complexity of ovaries, fallopian tubes, pelvic shape, uterus, cervix, internal clitoris, musculature and cell lining of the vagina and so much else as irrelevant. Women are pretty much summed up as a penis sock and not much more. It's a clanging endorsement of the arrogance of men in dismissing women, ignoring who we are.

When I hear a transwoman declaring their neovagina is like any woman's vagina, post hysterectomy or otherwise, I cringe. Of course it bears no real resemblance. It's a hole, yes. But a vagina is a functional female organ. It DOES stuff!

One day I'll find the right words to express my frustration with being repeatedly told that my body can be reduced to whatever a surgeon can cosmetically approximate from a penis and scrotum, or perhaps a bit of bowel.

The problem with the transgender movement is that almost every transwoman relentlessly defines themselves, not just as individuals in their own right, but in constant reference to me, and to all females. BUT, and this is a huge but, without us being allowed to refute that reference to us.

The trans movement insists both on a claim about themselves, but worse, a denial of ME.

There is an insidious narrative running through the whole ideology. It implies women are mere playdough, less than men, easily recreated with some modifications and manipulations of flesh.

We're not. And we get to say so as loud as we want, until we are heard.

Combined with it being more difficult to make a man, genitally speaking, out of a woman, genitally speaking, yes, that is how it seems.

Great post Iced. It’s not something I’d really thought about but you’re right, it all does sound very much as though women are just half formed men.

Opening line - I meant, I am glad surgery has helped your GID.

I am not sure my post makes much sense. I just want to say I am a woman, I cannot be made, imitated, copied. That is not to invalidate anyone else, just state how I feel.

I think your testimony about your experiences, beliefs and physical feelings is very open and honest, Rachel40, and I am glad it has helped your GID.

It somehow makes me sad, though, and it has stuck in my mind since reading it yesterday.

It’s the bit about the labia being fused together in a man and the clitoris being the tip of the penis which is getting me. I am not a reproductive scientist, but it sounds like the eighteenth century view that women were inverted men (biologically speaking). And the eighteenth century view came within a patriarchal society where women belonged to men, literally.

It somehow feels to me like not existing anymore as something distinct - a woman - if a woman can be created out of a man. It’s like Eve being made out of Adam’s ribs.

I know Rachel40 you were very careful to make distinctions between your genital area now and born female genitals, but even then, what you say is imbued with the idea that it is simply correcting natural development. That men could be women aside from bodies developing in a different way. I do not begrudge you the solution to your dysphoria at all, to be clear.

Where it gets problematic is when this moves beyond an individual medical condition to a political movement - that men could be women aside from bodies/brains developing a different way - within a context of historical and existing inequalities based on sexual difference. Because it erases women as a distinct group with specific needs.

My labia are not an opened up scrotum. Don’t you see - that women’s biological funtions (menstruation, miscarriage childbirth) have long been hidden away from society - menstrual blood has been seen as dirty - that to say a man’s vulva is closed up neatly (not dirty) is offensive? I know, I know, I know that you did not mean this, but there is a long history of women’s organs being seen as seeping, dirty, unclean.

Combine that with the historical belief that women’s reproductive organs were inverted, underdeveloped compared to men’s in a patriarchal context and I am struck by how much this buys into historical tropes that have underpinned women’s inequality over centuries.

I am honestly, truly not wanting to come across as attacking you Rachel I appreciate your honesty and openness. But what you say has unsettled me, because it brings me, as a woman, face to face with a past I thought we had moved on from.

You don’t know how women orgasm, you know that you orgasm differently to how you did before. Maybe I am a prude (I was called this by my sexually abusive ex-H), but I have never explained to anyone how my orgasms feel, and would feel very uncomfortable doing so. Maybe that is just me, but I would hate someone to ask me.

Rachel, I’ve said recently on another thread that it is Transwomen like you, as well as women, that have been thrown under the bus with all this TRA bullshit.

Im beyond happy for you that your transition has successfully eased your dysphoria and that it’s all been worth it. It must have been a very hard road, and I imagine it’s very galling to see the likes of Lily Madigan and Danielle Muscato claiming they are trans and co-opting your genuine struggle.

Also, you (not literally you!) are the person I suspect a lot of trans allies are thinking of when they blindly state that all transwomen are women. I know I did before finding out that the vast majority now are not taking hormones, considering surgery or doing anything else other than wear heels and makeup. It makes a mockery of womanhood, whereas in my opinion what you have done is emulate it (and respectfully so, just going by your posts here).

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for posting, thanks for ‘getting it’ and I wish you a long and happy life.

Datun - An inverted penis isn't a clitoris.- Exactly. A Trans Neo-vagina isn't a Vagina (I may change that view only after I have a period or push a baby I've grown myself out of it - until then, don't hold your breath). It's the best approximation I'll be able to ever have. I can only describe how I experience things (orgasm or otherwise) and try to objectively compare it to others. But even that is for reference only. I'm pretty happy with my body (again - still a new feeling for me).

That is the most honest statement I've ever read from a transwoman.

It simply acknowledges that women exist, that we are anatomically very different from you and that it is not possible to become one, only a best approximation.

I'm astonished.
One of my hugest frustrations is when transwomen deny EVERYTHING of female biology that they don't wish to acknowledge. And when we reference facts about ourselves which differentiate us - often enormously crucial facts - from transwomen, we are told to hush up.

I had no clue about the internal structure of the clitoris until a year ago because a male led scientific community had dismissed the importance of female anatomy. And it's more galling that transwomen are being dismissive of our female anatomy because society isn't challenging their misogyny at all.

Classic example is the trans-speak 'front hole' to replace the word vagina for the sake of not offending transmen.

Except the front hole is in fact the urethra. Only a monumental disregard for female anatomy could produce the concept that hey, it's a hole for a penis, let's call it front hole despite it being the middle one because who can be bothered to care about actual female bodies, amirite?