"vagina"

[Elsa.G]

I was reading wikipedia about the definition of vagina and it is defined on that site and various others as a "fibromuscular tubular tract, leading from the uterus to the exterior female body". So basically the vagina is a entire structure which includes the female reproductive organs including the uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, and everything on the outside which is defined only as the vulva. So i was wondering since the vagina is a entire complex structure that includes the internal organs, why do we refer to SRS procedures as Vaginoplasty? since technically the surgery would only construct the outside which is referred to only as the vulva. Would it be more correct if we referred to vaginoplasty as vulvaplasty? and im not going to get into the whole argument of "some gg's also have certain problems" im only referring to the majority of females who have normal function of their sexual organs and correct female chromosomes XX only. The reason why i ask this because i didnt really know the actual definition of the word until read it, i always assumed vagina was simply the outside.

[Padma]

As your wikipedia definition states, the vagina is the tube that leads "from the uterus to the exterior", so it doesn't include the uterus or any of the internal organs, it just connects the uterus to the outside world (and to the vulva).

A vaginoplasty uses existing tissue to create a vagina, i.e. a tube that runs into the body from the outside - and also involves some sculpting of the exterior to produce a vulva and sometimes labia too. In the case of a vaginoplasty, the created vagina doesn't lead anywhere inside, so the internal end of the tube is closed off.

It's not an ideal word, but then "vagina" itself is ambiguous these days, since people do more generally use it to refer to both the vagina and the vulva/labia collectively, which is maybe what caused your confusion about it being "simply the outside". It's an inexact term used inexactly .

[AndromedaVox]

I think that vagina is commonly used incorrectly. It actually is only the hole itself leading to the uterus, so vaginoplasty is actually constructing a vagina. The vulva is only the exterior.

[Felix]

I think the definition of vagina is changing, because so many people do use the word for the vulva as well. If enough people make a linguistic mistake consistently, the mistake becomes the new meaning.

[MiaSakura]

I knew about the vulva, but I thought it was all just an umbrella term.  Hmmm...  Mia has learned something new tonight.

[Sailor_Saturn]

The vaginal canal is the vagina. The labia minora and majora comprise the exterior, surrounding the entrance to the vaginal canal. At the end of the vaginal canal is the cervix, followed by the uterus and fallopian tubes. The vagina begins at the external opening to the vaginal canal and ends at the cervix.

The etymology of the term "vaginoplasty" probably lies in the construction of a faux-vaginal pocket by the process. The term does fail to account for construction of the vulva, but then again the term serves its purpose in that everyone understands what is meant.

[Mahsa Tezani]

SRS creates the look of a vagina. But the vagina is technically false, as it does not have the cervix, ovaries, ova etc... It technically is just a reconstructed penis/scrotum in the configuration to resemble a vajajay.

However, not even doctors can tell the difference between a neovagina and a gg vagina.

[rock chick]

i dont think we can redefine what the medical community has already defined....I had vaginoplasty which if you break the root word from the suffix.......vagino=vagina  plasty=surgical correction   taken directly from Stedmans medical terminology

[Felix]

Medical terms change too, but yeah anatomical terms change a lot lot slower, if at all. But I wasn't referring to vagina as a medical term, but as a word in the english language. Once Stedman's has a different (not just more specific) definition of a word than the OED, then the Stedman's version becomes professional jargon.

[AndromedaVox]

SRS creates the look of a vagina. But the vagina is technically false, as it does not have the cervix, ovaries, ova etc... It technically is just a reconstructed penis/scrotum in the configuration to resemble a vajajay.

However, not even doctors can tell the difference between a neovagina and a gg vagina.

Technicalities aside, a vagina is a vagina. Would you tell a woman who had a hysterectomy that she no longer has a vagina just because it doesn't lead to a uterus?

[xxUltraModLadyxx]

SRS creates the look of a vagina. But the vagina is technically false, as it does not have the cervix, ovaries, ova etc... It technically is just a reconstructed penis/scrotum in the configuration to resemble a vajajay.

However, not even doctors can tell the difference between a neovagina and a gg vagina.

doctors can't tell the difference because a penis and vulva really aren't hugely different. they are just formed differently. they have the same nerves and material.

[Mahsa Tezani]

doctors can't tell the difference because a penis and vulva really aren't hugely different. they are just formed differently. they have the same nerves and material.

If they have the same material...where is my ova and ovum?

[FairyGirl]

There is something called polymorphism where the organ changes over time to be exactly what it was constructed to be- a real vagina.  The tissue actually changes.  Here is an interesting article, with references you can check, that explains a little about this process (the emphasis is mine):

Neo-vaginal Lining Becomes Indistinguishable from "Normal" Vaginal Tissue

by M. Italiano

Recent attempts at vaginoplasty for transsexuals have utilized a variety of techniques, including split-thickness and full-thickness skin grafts, penile inversion procedures, and sigmoid-colon methods.

Although the advantages and disadvantages of each continue to be debated, many stated advantages are clearly exaggerated or are erroneous. For instance, Masters and Johnson's (1966) pioneering work on the artificially-constructed vagina clearly demonstrates that "the method of creating an artificial vaginal barrel is incidental, since the functional reaction patterns of artificial vaginas are identical regardless of how they are constituted" (p.101). This statement includes behavior during arousal and orgasm as well as lubrication, a subject steeped in controversy.

Some surgeons opt for the use of sigmoid-colon methods in the belief that this provides an advantage of lubrication secreted by colon mucosa. Other surgeons employ mucosal flaps from the urethra to supplement penile inversion for the purpose of providing lubrication. They believe lubrication can't be achieved by the use of skin grafts or penile inversion. This is untrue.

There is much to be learned from non-transsexual women who have had surgery for "inadequate" vaginas. From months to sometimes years after skin grafting, the graft loses all of its skin properties and adapts to its environment, becoming a mucosa which takes on "the exact cytology, gross and microscopic, of a normal vagina" (Sherfey, 1973). Masters and Johnson state, "Suffice it to say that on the basis of pure cytologic evaluation, it is impossible to differentiate the epithelial cells taken from the artificial vaginas of Subject 'A' (when under the influence of adequate hormonal replacement) or Subject 'B' from those of a normal vaginal mucosal smear" (Masters & Johnson, 1961, p. 203).

Some surgeons disagree, stating that the tissue is not mucosa, but only resembles mucosa. They are only partially correct, since the normal female vaginal tissue is not truly mucosa either. It is called mucosa only because it lines a body passageway. It contains no mucous-secreting glands (Fawcett, et. al., 1995). That is why lubrication is a transudate phenomenon, the source being dilation of the capillaries that surround the barrel and the subsequent squeezing out of fluid through the vaginal walls, which in normal and artificially constructed vaginas have been shown to be a functioning two-way membrane. (Masters & Johnson, 1966). Although Masters & Johnson note that production of lubrication usually takes longer in the artificial vagina, they also showed that some artificial vaginas are capable of lubricating as well and as rapidly as any normally constituted vaginal barrel and that two of their patients had "lubricated, in fact, more effectively than many women with normally constituted vaginas" (Masters & Johnson, 1966).

Pierce ET. al. (1956) demonstrated the conversion of skin to vaginal epithelium, which after twenty years, included normal vaginal PH levels, complete loss of hair, complete loss of pigment, complete loss of sweat glands, and normal vaginal epithelial glycogen levels. They proposed, "the process is not one of metaplasia, for no new cell types are produced. Rather, there is alteration of existing cell layers and the loss of the skin organs." (p.6)

Those post-operative male-to-female transsexuals who amuse themselves with the peculiar statement that they still have a penis, but that it's just turned inside-out should note that not only do they not have a penis, but they don't even have skin of the penis any more. The histology of the tissue has changed. It also responds to hormones in an identical way as does a normal vagina, with "cyclic cornification and mucification" (Sherfey, 1973). The presence of ovaries is not a necessity. For instance, "The estrogenic and early luteal effects demonstrated by Subject 'A' are obvious, and serve as a clinical indication of adequate steroid replacement in this surgically castrated female" (Masters & Johnson, 1966, p. 203).

More impressive is a recent report by Alessandrescu et. al. (1996), who did biopsies on twelve artificially constructed vaginas and found an epithelial structure identical to that of a normal vagina. Two examples are shown in the form of pictures using electron microscopy.

Although it may be suggested that transsexuals may respond differently than non-transsexual females with regard to the results of vaginoplasty, it is my opinion that the burden of proof that this is the case rests with the surgeons who employ such procedures as colon usage and mucosal flaps for the purposes they intend. Since the nature of their work is clinical and generally not investigative, they should at least advise their patients that future study may be necessary before the value of their technique can be substantiated.

REFERENCES

Alesandrescu, D., et. al. (1996). Neocolpopoiesis with split-thickness skin graft as a surgical treatment of vaginal agenesis: Retrospective review of 201 cases. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 174(1), 131-138.

Fawcett, D.W., et. al. (1994). Textbook of histology (12th ed.). New York: Chapman & Hall.

Masters, W.H. & Johnson, V.W. (1961, May-June). The artificial vagina: Anatomic, physiologic, psychosexual function. Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics, & Gynecology,69,192-212.

Pierce, G.W., et. al. (1956, July). Changes in skin flap of a constructed vagina due to environment. American Journal of Surgery, 92,4-8.

Sherfey, M. (1973). The nature and evolution of female sexuality. New York: Random House.

[Mahsa Tezani]

There is something called polymorphism where the organ changes over time to be exactly what it was constructed to be- a real vagina.  The tissue actually changes.  Here is an interesting article, with references you can check, that explains a little about this process (the emphasis is mine):

Fairygirl, you worked your magic in this post.

[xxUltraModLadyxx]

If they have the same material...where is my ova and ovum?

as of now, there's nothing you can do as far as gonads are concerned, but genitals you can. i don't consider the reproductive organs to be the same as genitals. i've noticed you are one who would not get srs through several posts. i share some of the same opinions as you as far as not being the sum of parts, but i don't have a clear cut decision on whether i will get this surgery or won't. the only areas having a penis seem to affect me are not being able to have sex with a male the way i would want to, not being able to find a male who is understanding. since i'm virgin, and i just can't realistically see an opportunity for sex coming my way anytime soon, genitals are very seldom on my mind.

[Felix]

Okay, I know I've mentioned this before, but my mother had hair and teeth growing in her ovaries. If that's somehow more womanly and natural than the inner parts of a woman who was born with a penis and its accouterments, then the world is not at all what I thought it was.

I don't think internal organs need be part of a "real" vagina.

[Ava C]

Okay, I know I've mentioned this before, but my mother had hair and teeth growing in her ovaries. If that's somehow more womanly and natural than the inner parts of a woman who was born with a penis and its accouterments, then the world is not at all what I thought it was.

I don't think internal organs need be part of a "real" vagina.

Not sure if you're serious or not..

Nonetheless that would be scary.



Anyways OT - It's just a definition, it doesn't define you.

[Felix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermoid_cyst

Lol I'm going to go cringe and twitch for a bit now.

[Mahsa Tezani]

. since i'm virgin, and i just can't realistically see an opportunity for sex coming my way anytime soon, genitals are very seldom on my mind.

They aren't on my mind as much as they used to be... You know men have like personalities and feelings and stuff.

[JenJen2011]

being able to have sex with a male the way i would want to

How do you want to? Getting penetrated? Because if that's the case, you can use your ass for that, for now at least.