So, I'm getting closer to wanting to make a decision about what lower surgery i'll be having. Here in the Netherlands you basically have 4 options, going from low risk (basically the usual surgery risks) to high risk (50% complication rate, yeah, that's right...):
- metoidioplasty without urethra lengthening
- metoidioplasty with urethra lengthening
- Phalloplasty without urethra lengthening
- Phalloplasty with urethra lengthening
Phalloplasty is more risky than metoidioplasty due to more risks of bleeding and rejection of tissue. But the surgeons also told me that the lengthening of the urethra so one can stand to pee is also bringing major risks.
I like to live dangerously, and will opt for a phalloplasty, I think. I like having a normal sized penis, that may function after some extra surgery, getting ball and erection implants. However, I am very much in doubt about the urethra lenghtening. To me, standing to pee is not a huge issue. I have never really needed it. And it does bring a lot more extra risks ontop of an already risky procedure. That's why I'm leaning towards not having the option to stand to pee.
I wonder what you guys thinks about this. Discuss!