Quote from: AnxietyDisord3r on August 21, 2016, 09:26:47 AM
FTMax, not having my balls is a big part of my genital dysphoria. Talking about removing ovaries brings those feelings up in a bad way. Yeah, maybe it won't happen but I didn't have existing ovarian problems so I'd say that gives me 5 years to see where the science goes. It seems to me like this is an area that hasn't received adequate research. Also, IMO our condition is a disease, so why shouldn't it receive medical research $$$?
Does it matter to you that they be fully functional? Scrotoplasty and the insertion of testicular implants are an optional addition to both existing bottom surgery procedures. The implants are the same kind that cisgender men have the option of getting after testicular cancer. I am not sure it would work, but what about the possibility of transplanting the ovaries? Removing them, completing a scrotoplasty, and then inserting them in place of implants? I don't know what effects that would have hormonally, but if the idea of having anything implanted doesn't appeal, that could be another option. I've never heard of it being done, but it's a question you could ask a surgeon later on. That would at least leave them positioned in such a way that if changing one to the other became an option, you'd still have them there to do so. But it would mean leaving them there until that became an option.
On the topic of gender dysphoria being a disease, I believe it is better classified as a condition. Diseases are patho-physiological responses to internal or external factors, conditions are abnormal states of health which interfere with regular feelings of well being.
I think the issue you'd find with getting funding on that basis is that transition is very individualized. The "end game" if you will for many trans people doesn't involve SRS or anything related. Having given grant money in the past, you want to make sure that your money is doing the greatest good possible. While there may be some special interest donors out there that would be thrilled to put their money into something like this, most would rather focus on funding things that meet a more widespread need.
That of course begs the question, if the option was available, would more trans people pursue it? I think on the FTM side, the amount of misinformation or lack of information in general regarding SRS procedures has a large impact on the percentage of trans men pursuing lower surgeries (which I would lump such a procedure under the umbrella of). While that situation is constantly improving, I think that would be a very big hurdle to overcome in order to get more people interested in pursuing something even more advanced like those surgeries plus the gene therapy it would take to change ovaries into testes.
If I were in the shoes of someone granting research funds, I'd want to see that whatever I'm funding meets a certain level of impact. On a dollars per person formula - using easy numbers, if I have $5 million to fund one research project and I have two in front of me:
Option A - positively impacts 5 million people
Option B - positively impacts 500,000 people
I'd essentially be spending $1 per person impacted with Option A, and $10 per person impacted with Option B. There are other factors you'd have to take into account with health research like contagion or heredity, morbidity, etc. that may weigh more in favor of the more expensive option. But IMO, getting into such a niche area as this that would (at current rates) not even impact half of an existing population - I think you'd be hard pressed to make that case. As much as organizations funding research would love to consider the human factor and the positive impact their money can have on individual lives, IME it usually comes down to the greatest good that can be done per dollar.
