Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

China: neophalluses grafted onto female dogs

22 replies

DerekFaker · 31/12/2023 09:40

.@peta, here is proof that dogs are being horribly abused and then killed and dissected by doctors attempting to create a better “penis” for transmen. Scientists also sewed two rats together to see if a male rat could carry a fetus.
You protest against milking cows; how about protesting against something truly horrible?

#TransIsAnimalCruelty

oup2-idp.sams-sigma.com/authorize?auth…

https://twitter.com/sappholives83/status/1741034608706334858?t=p5IDAaMA_cmlCgmolzRQxg&s=19

https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/6/2/162/6956480?login=false

https://twitter.com/sappholives83/status/1741034608706334858?s=19&t=p5IDAaMA_cmlCgmolzRQxg

OP posts:
DerekFaker · 31/12/2023 09:43

WARNING: DISTRESSING DETAILS

China: neophalluses grafted onto female dogs
OP posts:
ZoomerDinosaur · 31/12/2023 09:49

When I think about animals suffering and dying in the name of medical research, I console myself with the knowledge it will contribute to immeasurable improvements to human lives. For example, new cancer drugs.

Now it seems we can no longer take even this for granted. This is a completely different kind of playing God.

Helleofabore · 31/12/2023 10:20

I was just reading about it.

I am horrified.

Datun · 31/12/2023 10:31

This reply has been deleted

We are taking this down as it is not in the spirit of the site.

RebelliousCow · 31/12/2023 10:49

Horrendous usages of animals and dystopian research has been going on for many decades. Beagles used to be strapped in harnesses and made to smoke cigarettes all day; chimpanzees were used as crash test dummies......the way we treat other creatures in the name of science is sickening.

guinnessguzzler · 31/12/2023 11:14

What the actual fuck is wrong with people? Utterly grim.

Rainbowshit · 31/12/2023 11:52

This isn't real surely?

ResisterRex · 31/12/2023 12:12

The paper concludes:

"Conclusion
Our preclinical investigation proves that corpora cavernosa reconstruction using bilateral innervated gracilis muscles is technically feasible and functionally efficacious."

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

A1b2c3d4e5f6g7 · 31/12/2023 12:31

ZoomerDinosaur · 31/12/2023 09:49

When I think about animals suffering and dying in the name of medical research, I console myself with the knowledge it will contribute to immeasurable improvements to human lives. For example, new cancer drugs.

Now it seems we can no longer take even this for granted. This is a completely different kind of playing God.

This isn't actually true. Look at many of the studies. 92% of drugs fail in human trials, as animal testing doesn't have good efficacy. There's a lot of info on anti-vivisection websites too. It's often pointless and there are many alternatives which are more effective. My friend spent ten plus years working for a charity and not a single new drug got approved. It is disgusting and should be highlighted

Datun · 31/12/2023 13:18

ResisterRex · 31/12/2023 12:12

The paper concludes:

"Conclusion
Our preclinical investigation proves that corpora cavernosa reconstruction using bilateral innervated gracilis muscles is technically feasible and functionally efficacious."

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

I'm not sure a penis could be called functionally efficacious, if you have to give the owner of it an electric shock to get hard on.

UtopiaPlanitia · 31/12/2023 14:09

Bloody hell, these people are actual mad scientists!!!

Edited to add that women’s healthcare is massively underfunded and under-researched and these people are wasting time and money hurting dogs for a bullshit sexist ideology.

ResisterRex · 31/12/2023 14:31

I agree Datun, they're stretching words beyond what they really mean.

happydappy2 · 31/12/2023 15:05

This is so disturbing and cruel. It benefits absolutely no one. What are the ethics committees thinking?

ArabellaScott · 31/12/2023 15:09

I saw this yesterday but just didn't have the stomach to make a thread.

Horrors.

NitroNine · 31/12/2023 15:15

A1b2c3d4e5f6g7 · 31/12/2023 12:31

This isn't actually true. Look at many of the studies. 92% of drugs fail in human trials, as animal testing doesn't have good efficacy. There's a lot of info on anti-vivisection websites too. It's often pointless and there are many alternatives which are more effective. My friend spent ten plus years working for a charity and not a single new drug got approved. It is disgusting and should be highlighted

⬆️
If penicillin had been tested on guinea pigs we’d not have antibiotics - or in a best case scenario, they’d have been developed far later, which would have been disastrous when you consider during WWII people (including doctors & pharmacists!) were attempting to make their own penicillin due to a combination of the scarcity of the miracle drug & the media giving the impression anyone could knock up a batch with a few basic ingredients.

There is doubtless money to be made from creating a surgical technique for successfully grafting a penis onto a transman. All current “gender reassignment” techniques are, as I understand it, considered experimental: each surgeon doing things their own way, with no agreed methods &/or standards of practice. Surgeons working in this area will frequently refuse to fix the work done by other surgeons; so if you travelled abroad for your initial surgery & suffer complications on your return, good luck finding a surgeon nearby to fix them. This may be a - horrificly warped - attempt to come up with something that will become standard. (For avoidance of all doubt, I do not think it is ethical, reasonable, right, &/or justifiable in any way to do this research.)

As @UtopiaPlanitia pointed out, women’s healthcare is massively under-researched & under-funded. We’re still stuck with male as not simply default but prime - nobody rushed to create a new oral contraceptive for women after it was decided the poor men couldn’t be expected to endure a fraction of the side-effects women are scolded for complaining about, for example!

Newbutoldfather · 31/12/2023 15:35

There is a massive conflation of issues here:

Do you believe animal research that causes some suffering and the euthanasia is ever acceptable?

If so, do you believe this should only be for life saving procedures or more generally allowed?

Just because it is researching this hot button issue doesn’t make it any more (or less) gross than animal research for any other cosmetic procedure, which clearly happens all the time.

DerekFaker · 31/12/2023 16:11

Do you believe animal research that causes some suffering and the euthanasia is ever acceptable?

Absolutely not.

OP posts:
SpicyMoth · 31/12/2023 16:52

I feel sick.
This is utterly vile.

"Do you believe animal research that causes some suffering and the euthanasia is ever acceptable?"
NO.

SpicyMoth · 31/12/2023 17:02

Any animal research that causes suffering is not ethical animal research.
Research that causes suffering, even if not intentionally should be stopped immediately and alternative methods or medications should be found.
It should be taken as a sign that whatever it is they are testing, isn't safe.

Every precaution possible should be taken to ensure an animal does not experience needless trauma, suffering, pain and/or death.

In the case of cancer medications, they shouldn't be tested on healthy animals with no cancer, as just one example.

Tygertiger · 31/12/2023 17:12

SpicyMoth · 31/12/2023 17:02

Any animal research that causes suffering is not ethical animal research.
Research that causes suffering, even if not intentionally should be stopped immediately and alternative methods or medications should be found.
It should be taken as a sign that whatever it is they are testing, isn't safe.

Every precaution possible should be taken to ensure an animal does not experience needless trauma, suffering, pain and/or death.

In the case of cancer medications, they shouldn't be tested on healthy animals with no cancer, as just one example.

Based on this, you could never do a surgical procedure on an animal - although they are given painkillers and anaesthetic, it’s unlikely that they feel zero pain at all. The question is whether the surgical procedure is justified. If it’s contributing towards a new cancer or dementia treatment, most people would say yes.

Creating a “neopenis” on a dog, just to see if they can - no. I cannot see how this got through any kind of ethical review.

But then, NASA recently suspended rats immobile in harnesses for months to simulate weightlessness in space to see if they could still get erections afterwards, and apparently that’s ethical too. Because they presumably couldn’t just review the experiences of human males who have actually been to space to gather the same data.

Datun · 31/12/2023 17:23

Creating a “neopenis” on a dog, just to see if they can - no. I cannot see how this got through any kind of ethical review.

My post was deleted, presumably because I made a judgement on the potential mental health of a woman who would advocate for this on the basis that they would require a neo penis. And why that should be the basis for experimental surgery in the first place.

I won't repeat what I said, because I'll be deleted again, but my question would be what kind of mental health would one imagine such a woman to have?

And why is that the reason for these experiments?

Or are surgeons conducting these experiments on dogs without any intention of being able to sell the results to transmen??

New posts on this thread. Refresh page