Should someone be allowed SRS who is not planning to present as a female?

[Donna Elvira]

It's troublesome trying to put yourself inside someone's head. Trying to understand their reasons and emotional driving force for wanting what they want. I have found you can't really do that with any degree of efficacy because you don't feel the way they feel. No matter who you are. There is a depth of self-knowledge that even the deepest probing cannot touch.

I can know what you know, but I cannot feel what you feel.

However, I have found, in my limited experience, that you don't have to understand why someone wants what they want. Why someone is who they are. You just have to respect that they understand themselves well enough, and are clear-minded enough to ascertain their own wants and needs. And, if that proves to be the case, then I would not presume to know what's better for someone than they know themselves.

As is almost always the case, I agree entirely with what you have to say Sephirah and I think most other people would too. Also, to the extent that people assume full responsability for their acts, including paying themselves both for their surgeries and the eventual fall out should things go topwise, it is hard to find any reason not to allow people do much as they want with their bodies. That being said, in the country I live in, France, mutilation is a criminal offense and most, if not all doctors, would steer very clear of doing any "transformative" surgery that was not clearly deemed a medical necessity. Even if you signed a waiver, the law always takes precedence over contract so, no matter what is written in the contract, a doctor could still be sued for malpractise by the Medical Order, the public prosecutor or others...

Furthermore, if any form of public financing is sought for eventual transformative surgeries (social security and/or private insurance companies) realistically there is absolutely no way that such financing will be forthcoming without demonstrating the need for the desired surgery. For many "classic" MTF's this is already quite a complicated process and for the less classic cases I can see how it would be a challenge for the "system".

End of the day, in practise, unless you do everything solo (pretty much what I did myself as it happens but I still needed my two letters for my GRS), you are always going to be confronted with some sort of approval process which will require convincing others that what you are asking for is needed and will actually improve your situation.

Given the need for rules in any society, I personally don't find much to object to about in that.
Hugs
Donna

[Sephirah]

As is almost always the case, I agree entirely with what you have to say Sephirah and I think most other people would too. Also, to the extent that people assume full responsability for their acts, including paying themselves both for their surgeries and the eventual fall out should things go topwise, it is hard to find any reason not to allow people do much as they want with their bodies. That being said, in the country I live in, France, mutilation is a criminal offense and most, if not all doctors, would steer very clear of doing any "transformative" surgery that was not clearly deemed a medical necessity. Even if you signed a waiver, the law always takes precedence over contract so, no matter what is written in the contract, a doctor could still be sued for malpractise by the Medical Order, the public prosecutor or others...

Furthermore, if any form of public financing is sought for eventual transformative surgeries (social security and/or private insurance companies) realistically there is absolutely no way that such financing will be forthcoming without demonstrating the need for the desired surgery. For many "classic" MTF's this is already quite a complicated process and for the less classic cases I can see how it would be a challenge for the "system".

End of the day, in practise, unless you do everything solo (pretty much what I did myself as it happens but I still needed my two letters for my GRS), you are always going to be confronted with some sort of approval process which will require convincing others that what you are asking for is needed and will actually improve your situation.

Given the need for rules in any society, I personally don't find much to object to about that.
Hugs
Donna

Donna, I can understand what you're saying. And how it might be difficult for people who give the green light for, and perform surgery, to understand that for some people the two things aren't necessarily linked.

There is an overwhelming assumption that one wants SRS as a step in the process of presenting as female. That one is entwined in the other. No doubt because most, if not all people who a given medical professional deals with on a daily basis are very much set on that exact course of action. And honestly, more power to those people. I very much get where they're coming from. It's a package deal. Based on their own self-identity and how they want to live their lives.

Nevertheless, that mindset is there, I have no doubt of that. But speaking as someone whose dysphoria is almost entirely physical, and for whom the idea of presenting female is... hmm... how to word this... it is something which is a different aspect of self-image. Not something which is dictated by the anatomical dysphoria itself. It's hard to explain, and I don't think I did a very good job... anyhow, because of that, I don't think it necessarily has to be that way for everyone. And I think that there could be an argument for SRS improving the standard of life for someone who wants their physical form to match their own anatomical self-image quite outside the realm of wholly presenting female. I think that physical dysphoria, sometimes, can be so strong that however someone wants to present... having the anatomy to match their own internal self-image can substantially improve their quality of life and mental state without the assumed presentation needing to actually play a part.

And in that case, is it mutilation? I'm not so sure. You're right, though. Convincing people who are responsible for facilitating and performing surgery might be difficult. But again, I think that comes back to the trouble with trying to get inside someone's head and needing to understand the "why", rather than accepting that the person in question understands the "why" for themselves, and accepting that even if you don't get it... they do, and they believe their lives will be better because of it.

Maybe it comes down to re-classifying what constitutes "need", and de-coupling anatomical correction based on purely physical dysphoria from presentation based on that anatomy. My hope is that more work will be done in that area over the coming years, as more and more people come forward for whom the two don't readily go hand in hand. And I hope that the attitude will become more "Okay, you want this because it will, in your view, make your life better and it will make your sense of self congruent with your anatomy. You know what it entails -  the risks, the aftercare, the societal implications and how it will change things for you. You've understood all that, and still believe it is something which will allow you to function better as a person, in your own life, free from the mental anguish and impairment to your standard of life caused by this physical disparity... okay, then I trust that it's best for you."

[Taka]

a long post that was deleted because cell phones arw dumb, but currently my only means of communication.

mainly stating agreement with sephirah, and approval of jessica's post (you seem to be doing better, i'm glad).

the rest will be added later if it still seems relevant on monday.

be nice to each others, stay on topic, keep choosing your words wisely when expressing personal opinion or disagreement. i don't want this thread locked before i can consider whether or not to follow that though from my lost post.

[peky]

With increasing frequency, we've been seeing forum members speak of a need for gender surgery without socially transitioning. E.g. living post-op as a male with a vagina. They're looking for a way to do this.

The reasoning is usually something like this:
* They have body dysphoria but not social dysphoria.
* Lots of men live perfectly happy lives with vaginas. We have dozens of them posting on our FtM forum.
* Going through an RLE requires needless effort on their part and an uncomfortable year and is not helpful in decided how they want their body shaped.
* The WPATH requirement for RLE is a "guideline" and not a "rule".

Most of the time they are actively discouraged from doing this, often by the site staff. Their reasoning:
* RLE is a good idea because doctors require it.
* This is a huge step, and it's not unreasonable to require a patient to spend a year thinking about it.
* If you're not ready to live as a woman, you're probably not ready for SRS either.

What do you think? Should someone be allowed SRS who is not planning to present as a female?

Since you, the OP, has asked for opinions, I am going to give you my opinion.

I think people who want a vagina, and are not planning to present as females should not be allowed to get SRS because, in my opinion, such a position indicates and underlying mental condition that needs to be resolved first, least they find themselves regretting later on

[Allyda]

As someone who is totally binary and has been living full time as a woman for the last six years, my need, and I say "need" because that's exactly what it is for me, my need for SRS is overwhelming to say the least. Currently my quality of life suffers greatly and my genital dysphoria is so crippling I doubt I can last another year on this earth without having my surgery. I'm not strong enough emotionally to cope much longer with my body's bottom parts being so freakishly wrong. So I understand dysphoria very well as I live with it rearing its ugly head every time I use the rest room or take a bath or shower. I feel like freak of nature, a disturbing biological experiment that went so horribly wrong in all the worse possible ways -it's hard to put how disgusted and abhorred, admonished, and repulsed I feel about my own body's bottom private parts into words.

Having said all that, while I may never understand non binaries fully, I do respect them and call many my friends, many here on this forum, and if their quality of life is suffering because they feel even half as horrified as I do about my genitals being so so very wrong I see no reason to deny these individuals the surgery they so much need to improve their quality of life. And I too have a friend who has had the surgery and is regretting it but not because they no longer have a penis, but because of the maintenance required post-op.

Those of you who know me know I strongly disagree with gatekeeping in any form. I believe that most individuals seeking SRS truly do need the surgery not just to improve their quality of life, but for their own well being as well, and adding further restrictions or more hoops to jump through to get what for many, myself included, will be a life saving surgery is just morally and ethically wrong of the highest order. Be they binary or non binary the reasons for needing SRS are the same IMHO.

Just my $.02 peep's so don't prosecute, lol!

Peace Everyone.

Ally

[Jessica Merriman]

Those of you who know me know I strongly disagree with gatekeeping in any form. I believe that most individuals seeking SRS truly do need the surgery not just to improve their quality of life, but for their own well being as well, and adding further restrictions or more hoops to jump through to get what for many, myself included, will be a life saving surgery is just morally and ethically wrong of the highest order.

The only problem I see is without some form of therapy or evaluation how many will get it for the wrong reason such as a fetish or temporary passing fancy and be stuck with regret and anger? I DO NOT believe in gate keeping, but I do think a proper evaluation should be made to determine if it really is in the best interest of the patient. If it is found to be appropriate go ahead.  Please don't yell at me. I have had the worse day you can imagine. Just had to ask this. 

[Deinewelt]

Hope you feel better Jessica!  I think this is just a really complex subject where there is really no right or wrong answer.  From my perspective, I would get SRS and live as a woman most of the time and just present at work as a guy for the benefit of not having to lose my job.  I definitely think, why would you want to present as a male after SRS?  Is that because it is how you wish to present or due to overwhelming social pressures?  My stance is that I will probably go full time at some point, maybe in a year?  The reasoning is that, I want to hold my head up high and just be myself.  Why should I fold when it only reinforces these false prisons and harms other individuals who are like me?

[Declan.]

I'm torn on this. My point of view is that you should be able to do whatever you want with your body. However, I would be concerned about regret. It could lead insurance companies to be far less likely to cover these procedures, harming many of us, and it would be eaten up by the media, which already attempts to paint us as mentally unstable. You don't want to give more fodder to insurance companies and the media.

* Lots of men live perfectly happy lives with vaginas. We have dozens of them posting on our FtM forum.

I have to disagree with this. There are some of us who don't care about what's in our pants, true, but in my experience, the majority of FtMs who don't want bottom surgery are just concerned about the risks or unhappy with the current outcomes. I think you would be hard-pressed to find more than a few FtMs who wouldn't want "typical" male anatomy if it were as simple as pressing a button.

[AnonyMs]

Hi peky, while respecting your right to your opinion, I'd like to slightly modify it to express how I read it

I think people who want a vagina, and are not planning to present as females should not be allowed to get SRS because, in my opinion, such a position indicates and underlying mental condition that needs to be resolved first, least they find themselves regretting later on

I think men to want to become women should not be allowed to because, in my opinion, such a position indicates and underlying mental condition that needs to be resolved first, least they find themselves regretting later on

[AnonyMs]

AnonyMs, well, I don't participate in a trans-community (except this site)... Since moving to a really open country and community, all of my friends and contacts know me as female and accept me as such without hesitation, even though I still prefer my jeans and converse and flannel shirts to heels and skirts. My community here is very open-minded, some gay and lesbian friends and hangouts but mostly straight females (although I've cured one or two of them of that;) I think if I were 100% passable, I might do things a little differently, but given my limitations, I play to my strengths and work the gray area with confidence, dignity and self-respect. As such, if there was any pressure, I wouldn't notice, and I certainly wouldn't care. Nor should anyone else. 

That's a great attitude to life. I could do with more of it myself. I'm usually very resistant to outside pressure, but being trans is getting me down.

[Jessica Merriman]

I think men to want to become women should not be allowed to because, in my opinion, such a position indicates and underlying mental condition that needs to be resolved first, least they find themselves regretting later on

First, that is not what Peky said. She said if people want a vagina and DO NOT WANT to present female there should be an evaluation just like for MtFs for any possible underlying condition to resolve first. MtFs go through intense psychological therapy AND have to PROVE they can live as a female successfully before approval is given. What you said could offend many MtFs here who meet current criteria and follow all published rules and therapy related to transition.

[AnonyMs]

First, that is not what Peky said. She said if people want a vagina and DO NOT WANT to present female there should be an evaluation just like for MtFs for any possible underlying condition to resolve first. MtFs go through intense psychological therapy AND have to PROVE they can live as a female successfully before approval is given. What you said could offend many MtFs here who meet current criteria and follow all published rules and therapy related to transition.

Hi Jessica, I know that's not what peky said. I quoted exactly what perky said and put my reinterpretation below it. I suspect you got upset and didn't read it the way I intended. Could you please read it again.

What I wrote is offensive, and that was my point. I only changed a few words, so how is it offensive now and not before? From a non-binary perspective if that helps.

    people who want a vagina and are not planing to present as females => men who want to become women

I should also add that I'm not offended by what peky said, but I do disagree with it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Its how we act on it that matters to me.

And just to be clear its not actually my opinion either. I'd hope its nobodies opinion on these forums, although I suspect its close to 100% of everyone outside these forums.

[Sammy]

MtFs go through intense psychological therapy AND have to PROVE they can live as a female successfully before approval is given. What you said could offend many MtFs here who meet current criteria and follow all published rules and therapy related to transition.

And then again, there will many MtFs who wont be offended, so what could we do? Just refrain from posting and become defensive and start apologising even before somethjng has happened simply because the topic is controversial and we unfortunately happened to have different views? That does not sound very constructive, does it?

[Jessica Merriman]

people who want a vagina and are not planing to present as females => men who want to become women

OK. I understand now what your are trying to say and have no objection to that statement. People can read things wrong and it is not my intent to provoke any hostilities. It was a misread on my part, nothing sinister. I just interpreted it wrong and now I get it. See, nothing meant.

[Jessica Merriman]

And then again, there will many MtFs who wont be offended, so what could we do? Just refrain from posting and become defensive and start apologising even before somethjng has happened simply because the topic is controversial and we unfortunately happened to have different views? That does not sound very constructive, does it?

Emily I am trying very hard to understand your feelings. It is very confusing so please cut me a little slack here. At least I am trying to learn and have come along fairly well now from earlier replies.

[GendrKweer]

I still say that it is plain wrong to shackle a consenting person's body-decisions just because you or I don't understand their rationale. How is it different from the abortion debate? Excluding the religious aspect of it, that also is one person or group telling another they don't know what's best for themselves, or understand themselves as well as the outside party understands them. I don't understand why a lot of people do a lot of things, including have children. But I would never dream of preventing them from doing so if they were of sound mind and it harmed no one else... I don't think this is akin to having a muddled thought or an extra few shots of vodka at the bar and stumbling into an SRS studio at the mall and waking up the next day going omg what have I done? Although I am well aware of fetish communities of all sorts, much like the self-amputators et al, there simply isn't such a huge number of people who both do all the legwork (in terms of financially, or the 6 month waiting period, or the HRT) to get to the SRS surgeon's operating table AND who have a pure fetishistic desire for the operation (incidentally, HRT turns off the testosterone, eliminating a lot of that IMHO, and thus probably dropping a lot of people out of the program.). BUT even if it is purely a fetish, and there might be buyers' remorse down the line, it is NOT my place to prevent another consenting adult to not choose SRS as an elective surgery, any more than I should tell a woman to not get an abortion, or another woman to not have a child, or tell a man to not get a vasectomy, because I know better than they do...  With all due respect, how can this even be a debate?

[EchelonHunt]

I believe someone should be allowed SRS even if they do not identify as a female.

I have witnessed many men on the internet who had nullification surgery (removal of penis and testicles) and they are sane, level-headed individuals who have never been happier - there are many pictures of them, all retaining their male identity (beards, muscles, hairy and physically fit bodies) quite proudly just they do not have male genitals anymore. I have also seen a man who had nullification surgery but also had their flat scrotum modified to look like a vagina. Again, this man still identifies proudly as a man, just one with a vagina.

I have also seen people who will treat it as a fetish and I cannot understand the appeal behind that (it is not my business what people do with their bodies anyhow). If someone wants to remove their genitals or modify them into a different set of genitals because of intense body dysphoria, then by all means, I think they should go and do it. But... people removing their genitals as a fetish, fulfilling a fantasy, or removing them as the ultimate statement to their Master that they are forever theirs... I do not understand that. Relationships do not last forever, fantasies and (some) fetishes can change over time, I think it is extreme in this situation to remove or modify one's genitals on the basis of a fantasy, fetish or for their partner/Master. I think if someone wants to remove or modify their genitals, it should be for themselves and to improve their quality of life, something that will elevate their pain and ultimately give them a happier outlook on life.

I am aware that Buck Angel was born biologically female and transitioned to male. He had his reasons for not getting bottom surgery and he proudly calls himself a man, just a man with a (offensive word for vagina). He has said, "I don't need a penis to feel like a dude."

Is a man with a vagina still a man? Buck is quick to share his perspective on that.

"What is a man? If a man loses his genitals in say a car accident, are you not a man anymore? Of course you are. Being a man is more about what's in your head than what your body looks like." Quote taken from the article, Buck Angel: Self Made Man

Genitals do not define you as a man or a woman. Are pre-op transmen women if they enjoy using their vagina? Are pre-op transwomen men if they enjoy using their penis? No, they are still men and women because their gender identity (in their brain, heart and soul) is intact. Just as a man who has no genitals is still a man, a man with a vagina is still a man.

I agree that if someone wants SRS, that they should go through a psychological evaluation, just like anyone else who is seeking SRS/transitioning and to eliminate the chances of regret. But I do not agree that they should undergo psychological evaluation under the assumption that they will be denied SRS outright because they must have a underlying mental condition that is causing them to think this way. I do not think that is healthy and I am sure individuals have already gone through enough strife that they do not need to be treated like they are mentally disturbed or insane by health professionals just because their body map or gender identity is not within the norm that is the binary.

With all due respect, how can this even be a debate?

This.

[Jaime R D]

Too many people, even in the trans community, are assigning gender roles and presentation to genitals, just as its done in the cis world. Funny as hell if you ask me...

[Dread_Faery]

The essentialist narrative of binary thinking is hard to let go of. Pushback is happening though but change will take time.

[Dee Marshall]

I still say that it is plain wrong to shackle a consenting person's body-decisions just because you or I don't understand their rationale. How is it different from the abortion debate? Excluding the religious aspect of it, that also is one person or group telling another they don't know what's best for themselves, or understand themselves as well as the outside party understands them. I don't understand why a lot of people do a lot of things, including have children. But I would never dream of preventing them from doing so if they were of sound mind and it harmed no one else... I don't think this is akin to having a muddled thought or an extra few shots of vodka at the bar and stumbling into an SRS studio at the mall and waking up the next day going omg what have I done? Although I am well aware of fetish communities of all sorts, much like the self-amputators et al, there simply isn't such a huge number of people who both do all the legwork (in terms of financially, or the 6 month waiting period, or the HRT) to get to the SRS surgeon's operating table AND who have a pure fetishistic desire for the operation (incidentally, HRT turns off the testosterone, eliminating a lot of that IMHO, and thus probably dropping a lot of people out of the program.). BUT even if it is purely a fetish, and there might be buyers' remorse down the line, it is NOT my place to prevent another consenting adult to not choose SRS as an elective surgery, any more than I should tell a woman to not get an abortion, or another woman to not have a child, or tell a man to not get a vasectomy, because I know better than they do...  With all due respect, how can this even be a debate?

Just FYI, not weighing in on the discussion. The points I bolded are things that people have issue with as gatekeeping. Not that people shouldn't generally be of sound mind, but that they shouldn't be tested for it.

I have no opinion on the issue, just wanted to point out how things can creep in that look like gatekeeping to others.