What language are people allowed to use around describing SRS?

[Aaarrgghhh]

And other things. Why are opinions not allowed on the feminism boards but are fine elsewhere? Obviously this is specific to a certain subgroup of people. I’m getting annoyed today because I can say things elsewhere on the site but the same things said here are deleted.

All other subjects on the site aren't constantly stalked by a group of political extremist misogynists determined to control what women say, who harass HQ and report everything. In the belief that forcing MN to delete the evidence and hiding the words will prevent those thoughts escaping out and waking up the woke.

Quite. We are allowed to talk about other surgeries and poor women harmed by surgeons who have since been struck of or imprisoned, or treatments that have since be shown to cause harm and/or are of questionable worth (mesh, labia surgery). But SRS can only be discussed in glowing terms even when the surgeon with a conflict of interest does a terrible experimental bodge job on a youngster needing, so far, three attempts at ‘corrective’ surgery - and this happening in the glare of publicity.

Why are youngsters undergoing this surgery, or associated treatments not being allowed the same level of protection, through public scrutiny, are others? Why is MN HQ complicit in this?

The boards are only moderated as a result of reports. The more reports, the heavier the moderation.

These boards are reported all the time.

Which is why you can post elsewhere on the site, unless you, yourself, is someone who is targeted.

So if, for instance, the term mutilation is not allowed when talking about SRS, then are HQ expecting the actual facts to be written in full each time??

Eg, a teenage boy might have his testicles cut off, and his penis removed, or cut in half.

Healthy testicles, a healthy penis, and the potential for an adult sex life and the fathering of children - removed, or fashioned into a hole.

It's not what we are expected to do? Just stick to the clinical facts, in full, each time?

*that what we are expected...

Is it appropriate to refer to NHS surgery as ‘mutilation’?
Is it appropriate to refer to people as being mutilated when undergoing NHS treatment?

Is the NHS suddenly some arbiter of right and wrong?

They’re a provider of healthcare. They’re trying to improve people’s lives.

Datun I could understand some debate (which I don’t agree should be silenced) around the use of the word ‘mutilated’ for a planned established surgery with minimal/proportional risk. But to suggest this word is also wrong to use for dodgy experimental surgery which failed, left someone in pain and need of repeated surgeries to try and recover something from the poor outcome of the first?

Being a provider of healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you improve peoples lives. At all.

Clearly.

Sexequality

I don't disagree with you at all. And I think the world is entirely appropriate.

My point is that banning the word mutilated really doesn't help those who have reported it in the way they think it will.

Because it's the facts that are horrifying. And that doesn't change.

Is it appropriate to refer to NHS surgery as ‘mutilation’?
Is it appropriate to refer to people as being mutilated when undergoing NHS treatment?

Yes, if the patients were mutilated. Lots of patients have been have been harmed by nhs treatment: mesh, thalidomide, lobotomies, drugs which have since found to be unsafe (eg. Saroxat). None of these were even considered errors at the time. Then there are errors (removing wrong kidney, treating someone for non-existent cancer, having to removed arms/legs/uterus due to missing cancer) and rogue doctors such as George Rowland who has cost the NHS ~£25 million in compensation claims.

Of course NHS treatment leaves some patients mutilated.

Is it appropriate to refer to NHS surgery as ‘mutilation’?

Also the particular surgery being referred to was done in America, not on the NHS.

And the surgeon themselves admits it's experimental. As proven by the three subsequent operations to help correct the first one.

s it appropriate to refer to NHS surgery as ‘mutilation’?
Is it appropriate to refer to people as being mutilated when undergoing NHS treatment?

Is the NHS immune to fucking up? I don’t think they are. I appreciate the NHS it has saved my daughters life but with this they are wrong.

This is an American transman's experience of SRS:

madamnomad.com/2020/01/02/transman-offers-the-poop-on-phalloplasty/?fbclid=IwAR08zlnNpqEI-xJuzp3qSgc8JY8bxASEliQTm2R4s5kHnNyOKJsfpgOxpWw

CW: if you're squeamish, this has some fairly graphic photos of what is a pretty brutal series of operations.

dodgy experimental surgery which failed, left someone in pain and need of repeated surgeries to try and recover something from the poor outcome of the first

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.

OnlyTheTitOfTheIceberg That was a sad read. I don’t even understand how those that do go ahead and have the surgery (after seeing pictures) even see that tube of flesh as anything remotely like a penis.

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’.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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

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

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.