What language are people allowed to use around describing SRS?

We don’t have ‘spare’ tissue. Taking tissue from elsewhere ALWAYS involves risk, harm and compromise. For trauma or tumours this compromise is more straightforward eg. disfiguring scaring, pain and risk of infection at skin donor site versus much higher risk of infection and need to cover the trauma site.

What tissue would they use for the phalloplasty?
They will be using any tissue they can think off. Inside or out.

Surgeons are experimenting all the time, remodelling bodies when faced with mutilating tumours or trauma.
This is particularly relevant for military casualties.

Where there are planned interventions there is the potential to use donors or synthetic prosthetics or even animal parts (think of the use of pigs valves for heart surgery).
But there is the problem of rejection which then requires the lifelong use of immunosuppressants.

Therefore using the patients own tissue appears to be the solution, hence the use of military field hospital surgical expertise.

Back to planned intervention on healthy people, surgery is not an exact science.
Many people who undergo operations of any sort often have to return so it can be tweaked and revisited even in a minor way.
This is quite normal to expect.

Any gross removal of body parts is a process trial and error where a favourable outcome only might be possible. When it is being done on a healthy person the outcome, in theory, should be better.

But complications happen and everyone involved has to keep going because the perceived problem has now turned into a medical nightmare.

And here we are, experimenting on healthy bodies.

NotBadConsidering your post at 03:01 is excellent.

The man on Embarrassing Bodies had his penis chopped off in a freak accident. The surgeons fashioned one for him but it was not fully functioning, for instance his urethra was also severed and would have had to be lengthened. When tubes are stretched they are subject to infections. I didn't see the episode but I did read about it. It's happened before with soldiers and land mines.

It would be interesting and possibly quite sad to revisit that man's story and see how he lives with his surgically created penis, it could give some insight the life that follows after for someone who has had the operation but is not suffering with gender dysphoria.

Either way, had this op not worked he would still be a man obviously, but a man in pain and suffering following an accident. Maybe he still is.

Why would an 18 year old start puberty if it had been stopped, or a 16 year old? Has there been any research on this? Are we sure there isn’t an age window in which puberty must take place or it never will? If they do enter puberty is it a normal puberty or is it foreshortened? I haven’t seen any research on this other than referencing precocious puberty where they stop puberty blockers at 9 or 10 or so.

Logically, I would say that even if an 18 year old stopped puberty blockers and was allowed to go through puberty their body would progress to be relatively healthy. There maybe some differences in height, bone density etc and the big question would be the level of cognitive development. Overall I think it wouldn’t be considered an unhealthy body if this was allowed, even if it won’t be the natural body that would have developed without interference.

Do they still have the potential to progress to be fully healthy? After being on blockers for the whole of the usual ages for puberty? I haven’t seen an answer on that one as it seems they all go onto cross sex hormones.

True, a better description maybe would be

bodies that still have the potential to be healthy

If puberty blockers are removed and puberty progresses the body will become fully healthy once again. Once surgery is undertaken, this is impossible.

Notbad

Though I said myself about this surgery being done on healthy bodies, as you did, I think this needs correcting. Puberty blockers induce a diseased/disordered state - patients who take puberty blockers do not have ‘healthy bodies’.

There are also very very few long term studies of followup of even conventional SRS. Those there are are poor quality; short follow ups, no proper control groups, very high drop out rates...

As long as this site ha a complaint department instead of actual site moderators it is pretty much a crap shoot as to the words you can use to describe the human experience in the year MMXX.

Retrofitted

I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that those penises are less than real, or their owners as insane or deluded for considering them as a valid penis.

We'll no, I had no idea the pump/saline mechanism was used for men with penis problems. And no offence intended obviously.

But I was talking about women. Where I do think telling them they're men and have male genitals, and here's how, is deluded.

The two scenarios seem, to me, to be completely different.

Aaarrgghhh
Yeah the linked blog earlier suggested an ex partner had insisted on penetration. I'm not sure I'm convinced.

There are obviously a plethora of goodies that can be used to achieve that without surgery, some items are quite disturbingly realistic. So bearing in mind the fucker is going to have limited feeling, and the fuckee wants suitable rigidity and something aesthetically pleasing, it doesn't make sense to have a phalloplasty which neither delivers a realistic looking neopenis nor reliable rigidity (the implants need replacing after a while). Without being too crude, I'm sure more spirited coitus could be achieved using other means instead of relying on delicately crafted genital tissue.

For those transmen who may have previously identified as lesbians (picking my words carefully) I would imagine they are experienced in pleasing a female partner sans penis.

The metoidioplasty results in a neo-micropenis. I've seen a few that seem realistic, but when it comes down to choosing, obviously some transmen don't want a small penis.

Again, my anger is for the surgeons who lead these people on and promise them unrealistic outcomes.

Retrofitted that's interesting, I've only ever heard of ED issues with circulation, not the actual erectile tissue. Makes sense I suppose.
I should imagine it would be more successful implanted in penile tissue than in neopenile tissue.

Oink, it’s used in lots of scenarios. Cancer treatment is one where I’ve come across it in real life. Lots of cancers affect or damage erectile And other penile tissues and functions, and the testicular pump restores or creates them.

It's a very unsuccessful type of surgery, in the main. Anecdotally I have heard metoidioplasty is more popular. The outcome looks like a micropenis and sensation is retained. nsfw Thai hospital link

Although if that happened, what tissue would the surgeon use? Would it be the same as for a female to male phalloplasty?

Retrofitted I've never heard of that, is it mainly men who have lost their genitals through trauma? It's a common injury in war, having genitals blown off by an IED.

To be fair though Datun there are lots of men using similar saline pump mechanical means to achieve erection.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that those penises are less than real, or their owners as insane or deluded for considering them as a valid penis.

There was a dude on embarrassing bodies whose penis had been surgically created, and operated with a pump like that.

When you see those photos, you can really understand the findings of the Swedish study which indicated suicidal ideation increases after transition, can't you?

It's actually the arm photos that really got to me, even more so than the neophalllus. How many young girls being tempted down the primrose path of transition are aware that they could be left disabled in this way? (The author mentions struggling to hold a fork now FFS.)

It's both a tragedy and an absolute fucking travesty. Just because something is - barely - possible, doesn't mean it should be done. What happened to "first, do no harm"?

OnlyTheTitOfTheIceberg

Dear God that picture. I've seen them before, but I thought the outcome had improved.

And from what I understand, any erection needs to be generated using a mechanism of saline solution and a pump stored in the testicles.

It's so far from a penis there is no other word to describe it other than insanity.

Anyone, the patient, the surgeon, anyone, who is describing that as a penis is utterly deluded. It's too, too awful to fool people like this.

And I presume, because of the public nature of this case, this was the work of one of the best surgeons of this type in the USA

Or someone seeking fame? Vaguely remember other surgeons said ‘no’.