Penis transplant

it would be hard-pressed to deny access to penile transplantation to transgender men solely on the basis of their gender identity while making it available to cisgender men

I wonder if they will properly look outside of risked and benefits. I mean grs is sold as the final step. But I certainly noticed with jj abd others on twitter that its not the final step. They throw themselves into other peoples transitions. Fundraising/sharing crowd funders etc

Science is amazing. But it can't change your sex:

'limitations include the fact that transgender men who receive penis transplants will not be able to ejaculate since they lack a male reproductive system.'

These risky, complex and incredibly expensive operations don't seem a good function of medicine, even if they are technically possible. The list of potential complications and ethical considerations must be a very long one.

Marci Bowers, of Jazz Jennings botched surgery fame?

Yea, I don't think this would work like internal organ transplants do...

There's so much money to be made from mutilation. No wonder gender ideology is pushed so hard

There's already a dr in the states with multiple pending law suits for botched phalloplastys. Research and developed of female specific surgeries and treatments hasnt always been treated with the care thought and regard fir the consequences as it should have so this is a huge worry...

Wow, I didn't not know they could transplant a penis. That's amazing although a bit frankenstein and I'm not sure how I would feel about one being used on me.

But as the other poster said. There will be a limit to how many penis are available. Do male cancer patients or injured males take priority over transmen?

I would think a biological man should have priority because it's about restoring what was/should be there. But a trans person would argue that for them a penis should be there. But it's not the same in my eyes.

I'm confused by the testicle thing. So if you transplant testicles onto a new man, the testicles keep producing sperm with the dna of the donor not the recipient. How does that work.

I think because the donor is dead, and there is no potential fertility, it doesn't raise the same ethical issues as with womb transplants. But I think due to lifelong immune suppresent drugs and decisions about priority of recipients, it's a shaky path to go down.

Current phalloplasty complication rates are 80 to 90% according to that article. I feel awful for the people having it done, completely unnecessary treatment.

They wouldn't have the nerves or anything would they?

They take out the main nerve(s) to the clitoris and reattach the nerve ending to the skin tube (or in this case, the dead person's penis) so theoretically sexual feeling is acheived when the skin tube is touched, but in reality I understand phaloplasty leads to a loss of sexual feeling.

With an actual penis, they'd attach the clitoris nerve from the patient to the penis nerve which i suppose will branch out across the organ.

They go into a fair amount of detail if you read the link.

$300-$400k plus a lifetime of immunosuppression, with the consequent increase in infection and disease and reduction of life expectancy. For a very uncertain outcome - e.g. no idea if an erection will be possible. This is medical hubris, and it's very difficult to believe it's in the patients best interest.

There's so much money to be made from mutilation. No wonder gender ideology is pushed so hard.

Transplants unusually have a list dont they?

If this ends up as restricted as other organs how would they determine who gets priority?

They wouldn't have the nerves or anything would they? Would it do anything