posted on August 10, 2001 10:23:23 PM
While growing it on the arm is strange, the ability to create/recreate sexual organs is not new. They've been doing it for years for person undergoing sex-change operations.
posted on August 10, 2001 10:54:18 PM
There are no sexual organs truly "created" or even "recreated" in sex reassignment surgery. Basically the doctors take a scalpel to what's there and reshape it so that it resembles something else. It's a cosmetic procedure intended to make the individual feel better about him/herself, but there is no genuine transformation.
P.S. Had to laugh at the bad translation that said "he started looking for a medical institution that would bring the love handles back." Hell, here in the USA we have entire industry devoted to making them go away, LOL.
I'm sorry but I had to delete your post as it contained information that may be offensive to some of our Membership here at AW.
I will email you a copy of your post for ease of editing.
Edited to add: I'm sorry bunnicula - I appreciate your efforts greatly in reposting edits, but there is still one you need to edit out - please edit out the quote you reference from the article at the end - and Moderator's can't edit posts
Thanks,
Sara
[email protected]
[ edited by SaraAW on Aug 11, 2001 12:05 AM ]
posted on August 11, 2001 12:43:04 AM
How do you determine what may be offensive? We're adults here. Why not give it a chance and see whether anyone complains that it's offensive, and if that's the case, deal with it then. But don't censor responses before there are any complaints on the mere suspicion that it may be regarded as offensive.
posted on August 11, 2001 02:05:35 AMOh for Pete's Sake! OK: here is my post (again) this time deleting both the second link AND the quotation from the third. Though when you come right down to it, why is it OK to leave the third link which will allow people to click & read the quotation I am deleting anyway?!?
Here ya go:
Yes, they do "create" (and recreate). Although a penis that is created will probably not be fully functional, that can be fixed (as it is for men with erectile
disfunction) with an implant. And in men who make the switch to female & women born without one, a vagina *can* be created.
[url]http://www.crosswinds.net/~lajarretiere/men/surgery.html[/b]
WARNING: this site discusses sex-change surgeries!!
Deleted: link to site that shows an *image* of the results of metaoidioplasty, as required by Moderator. I'll tell you: it looks like a very small penis & testicles
http://www.ifge.org/info/ftminfo1.htm Deleted: rather detailed description of sex-change techniques, as required by Moderator. WARNING: clicking on this link will enable you to *read* that description. REPEAT: WARNING!!
edited to make a "{" into a "["
And for the misspelling of "description"
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 11, 2001 02:06 AM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 11, 2001 02:08 AM ]
posted on August 11, 2001 09:11:01 AM
But it's not a vagina. It's a penis cut open, hollowed out and inverted back into the pelvic cavity which is lined with the nerve endings of the stripped-down penis. Sure, surgeons and patients may refer to it as a "vagina," but it's no more a vagina than silicone implants are real breasts. Real vaginas don't have to be dilated to keep from closing up -- sex-change "vaginas" do. And why? Because they aren't really vaginas. They're surgical constructs of flesh made to simulate female genitalia. They're not even self-lubricating.
I have no problem with transsexuals referring to their transformed organs as vaginas. It hurts no one and makes them feel better about themselves. But I think it's misleading to post here that sexual organs can be "created" or "recreated" by science. "Reshaped" would be more accurate.
posted on August 11, 2001 09:43:56 AM
Actually male and female genatilia are basically the same tissue only under bombardment from different hormones.
The gonads "drop" during fetal development if male hormones are present ( actually in the majority, as we have both hormones present), and if female hormones are in the majority the gonads recess to become ovaries.
The same thing happens to penile tissue. For females it becomes a clitoris with the verve endings surrounding the area as well as the vagina, with the urethra separating. The scrotal sack becomes the labia in females.
We have basically the same equipment, but used for different functions, due only to hormone levels during developement.
There are some "true" females who must have their vagina dilated also. Post menopausal females can lose vaginal function (not to mention growing a beard)- are they no longer "females" with a "true" vagina ?
Nature doesn't provide all too clear lines between what is male and what is female. What is seen on the surface is not always the truth of the matter.
It could be the case that male to female transgender persons, who have regular male hormone levels, received female hormonal bombardment to their brain from the mother which effected the brain, but not the rest of the physiology.
So when is a "female" cavity not a "female" cavity ? If a "true" female is born without a vaginal cavity and a surgeon makes one, what do we call that cavity ? - an "untrue" vagina ? There are males born where one or neither gonads drop and are in the abdomen, and they have a very diminutive "male" penis, and there is a cavity, but the chromosones and hormone level all say he is "male". Is that cavity a "true" vagina ?
Some would do well to brush up on some very basic biology.
posted on August 11, 2001 10:06:47 AM
All the pseudo-intellectual puffery and cartoon science in the world can't turn a penis into a real vagina, REAMOND. That's the bottom line.
posted on August 11, 2001 10:13:03 AM
There are many transsexuals who would love to do that, terri. But medical science can't give them a real vagina, let alone ovaries and a uterus. Maybe in the future.
LOL, you added the "without an epidural" part while I was posting.
posted on August 11, 2001 10:21:25 AM
Hormones can and do turn tissue into male genatalia or female genatalia, and sometimes a little of both, and all from the same tissue.
The issue seems to be how the orifice was made, either by a surgeons handiwork or through hormone incursion at a developmental stage.
In either case there is no reason to find that either cavity is not a vagina.
The level of function of a sugically created vagina can also be found in "naturally" created vaginas.
Reality sooner or later kicks ideals right in the a$$.
posted on August 11, 2001 09:39:13 PM
Regardless of how a vagina is created--either for women born without one or for M2F sex change operations--if it looks like a vagina & serves as a vagina, then to all intents & purposes it *is* a vagina. Same with surgically created penises--whether intended for accident/birth defect victims or F2M sex changes.
In all probability the fact that it is sexual organs under discussion creates a measure of defensiveness for some people. You don't hear this kind of argument when the item under discussion is an ear reconstructed (recreated) using cartilege from another part of the body or a nose created or recreated using the same transferred cartilage & a flap from the forehead. Etc. etc. etc.
posted on August 11, 2001 10:42:02 PMIn all probability the fact that it is sexual organs under discussion creates a measure of defensiveness for some people.
I hope that wasn't a veiled reference to me, bunnicula, because I've already established that I have a very open mind and a broad range of knowledge with regard to this subject:
But even so, I bristle when I hear inaccuracies like:
the ability to create/recreate sexual organs is not new. They've been doing it for years for person undergoing sex-change operations.
There is already far too much misinformation and lack of understanding among the public when it comes to comprehending transsexualism. The last thing anyone needs is more. When you say that scientists are creating vaginas, people who are unfamiliar with the procedure may actually believe that a transsexual patient walks away from the operating table with a natural vagina. That's just not the case, and you know it.
At best, it's a facsimile. Some are better than others, but very few, if any, are ideal. In fact, a growing number of transsexuals are now deciding against the final genital surgery because it could well mean that they will never experience another orgasm. They dress as women, live and work as women -- but they are realistic enough to recognize the limitations of what medical science can and can't "create" and have elected to put off the surgery for the moment or even altogether.
posted on August 11, 2001 11:14:22 PM
"When you say that scientists are creating vaginas, people who are unfamiliar with the procedure may actually believe that a transsexual patient walks away from the operating table with a natural vagina."
Why would we be concerned that people would believe that? Surely we don't expect that people who hear that a scientist creates anything would believe that the thing created was natural? This rationale makes no sense to me.
posted on August 12, 2001 12:46:11 AM
There was a show on the Discovery Channel late night not too long ago about this. It wasn't about sex change but about reconstruction for people born with deformities (actually a particular specific one but I forget the name). What it amounted to was that they each needed the same type surgery required for a sex change. They interviewed many people, both male and female about the success of their surgeries then got them together to talk about it as a group. Every person admitted that they were sorely disappointed with the results and that the result was FAR from "normal". Several even regreted having atempted at all. Sad, but true in these cases.
Just don't ask me why I was up at 3am watching this show... The truth is, about the only thing I like on tv is medical/rescue stuff.
T
~either I am killing threads or it's Saturday night.
[ edited by jt on Aug 12, 2001 12:50 AM ]
posted on August 12, 2001 01:17:06 AMWhy would we be concerned that people would believe that? Surely we don't expect that people who hear that a scientist creates anything would believe that the thing created was natural?
