Are transitional surgeries (SRS/top surgery/FFS, etc) reconstructive surgery?

[Nero]

Are transitional surgeries (SRS/top surgery/FFS, etc) reconstructive surgery?

Why or why not?

On the one hand, they're correcting a defect. On the other hand, reconstructive surgery, by definition has to improve function.
And there's the stuff about cutting into perfectly 'normal' healthy parts, etc

What do you think?

[sd]

I thought about this a bit recently actually.

Is mtf srs really plastic? Nothing is fake, nothing is added, and it is not really a cosmetic surgery. In many ways it really is reconstructive. Same for top surgery for you guys. You guys are having an "abnormal growth" removed you could say.

In some ways though, almost all of it could be seen that way, are we not just correcting a birth defect? The problem is where to draw the line on reconstructive vs. plastic. In terms of breasts, girls get what they get, so is it still reconstructive for us? I would say no. And while testicle implants for you guys are technically cosmetic, like a woman with a mastectomy, you are just fixing what is missing.

[Beyond]

Are transitional surgeries (SRS/top surgery/FFS, etc) reconstructive surgery?

Why or why not?

On the one hand, they're correcting a defect. On the other hand, reconstructive surgery, by definition has to improve function.

Yes and they DO improve function.

[BunnyBee]

If the question is are these surgeries reconstructive or are they corrective, then I think the answer is "yes." 

[Mister]

They're only 'corrective' or 'reconstructive' if the parts being worked on are somehow dysfunctional.  Any form of SRS is cosmetic surgery.

[Sephirah]

They're only 'corrective' or 'reconstructive' if the parts being worked on are somehow dysfunctional.  Any form of SRS is cosmetic surgery.

Being physically repulsed and feeling nauseous by touching a part and hating the sight of it, not to mention emotional distress when it performs its supposed function... I'd say that was pretty dysfunctional, in that it doesn't function properly in the way it's supposed to, in the context of the entire organism. And it's detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of the person concerned, preventing them from living life to the full.

So... reconstructive in that it can reconstruct a person's sense of self, sense of place, sense of well-being, ability to enjoy parts of life which they've previously been denied, ability to function confidently in society... perhaps.

[tinkerbell]

What Leiandra said!


tink

[Mister]

Being physically repulsed and feeling nauseous by touching a part and hating the sight of it, not to mention emotional distress when it performs its supposed function... I'd say that was pretty dysfunctional, in that it doesn't function properly in the way it's supposed to, in the context of the entire organism. And it's detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of the person concerned, preventing them from living life to the full.

So... reconstructive in that it can reconstruct a person's sense of self, sense of place, sense of well-being, ability to enjoy parts of life which they've previously been denied, ability to function confidently in society... perhaps.

*shrug*  sorry, I disagree.  hate your penis as much as you'd like, but does it allow you to urinate?  ejaculate (hormones aside)?

If it works and you just want rid of it, it's plastic surgery.

If I have a bump on the bridge of my nose that i hate and i want it removed, this is plastic surgery.  If a deviated septum made breathing difficult, that is reconstructive.

[Sephirah]

*shrug*  sorry, I disagree.  hate your penis as much as you'd like, but does it allow you to urinate?  ejaculate (hormones aside)?

If it works and you just want rid of it, it's plastic surgery.

If I have a bump on the bridge of my nose that i hate and i want it removed, this is plastic surgery.  If a deviated septum made breathing difficult, that is reconstructive.

That's true... but consider if it didn't allow you to ejaculate simply because you couldn't have sex or masturbate due to the psychological trauma such acts caused. Not didn't want to, couldn't. Psychosomatic dysfunction is just as potent and detrimental as physical dysfunction.

[Mister]

That's true... but consider if it didn't allow you to ejaculate simply because you couldn't have sex or masturbate due to the psychological trauma such acts caused. Not didn't want to, couldn't. Psychosomatic dysfunction is just as potent and detrimental as physical dysfunction.

That's like saying a woman who has trauma around a rape should have a vaginectomy covered by her insurance as 'reconstructive.'

[Sephirah]

That's like saying a woman who has trauma around a rape should have a vaginectomy covered by her insurance as 'reconstructive.'

If it goes some way to reconstructing her ability to function as a productive, emotionally stable human being... maybe it should.

But that's a flawed analogy. Your example is based on trauma caused by an outside event that happened to someone, and dysfunction through feelings that event caused. With counselling, time, therapy and support, that can be alleviated somewhat.

However, with GID sufferers, the trauma is caused by the anatomical organs themselves and their very existance, free from all external stimuli and influence. And, as I assume you know, the above methods will not alleviate that dysfunction and mental suffering... and there is often only one option to allow sufferers to function as complete human beings. The reconstruction, or correction, of the individual's physical anatomy to correlate with their internal identity and self-perception. And, for now, that can only be accomplished through surgery.

So... no, it's not really the same thing.

[Mister]

I get where this whole thread is going-  surgeries should be covered by insurance companies, which i also don't agree with.  they're not necessary.

[Sephirah]

That's your opinion and in your case that may or may not be true. But you can't claim to know everyone else, their lives, circumstances, and what they do or do not need in order to be able to function properly.

The question was whether transition related surgeries were reconstructive or not. Insurance and how those surgeries are paid for, in this instance, are irrelevant and not part of the debate.

[Nero]

I get where this whole thread is going-  surgeries should be covered by insurance companies, which i also don't agree with.  they're not necessary.

that's not the intent behind this thread. i'm just interested in discussion about whether our surgeries seem more reconstructive or cosmetic. not in the legal sense.

[tinkerbell]

...and also let's remember that for some of us, SRS is a matter of life and death; hence, it is extremely necessary (for some of us, of course). 

I know, I know..off topic, but it needed to be said.

tink

[Northern Jane]

The "plastic" in plastic surgery refers to moulding and shaping, and in that sense SRS IS plastic surgery.

Is it reconstructive? No because it is not recreating or repairing something that was there before and was damaged.

Is it necessary? It was for me. I would have been dead 35 years ago if I had not found a surgeon. That is not a supposition but a fact. I was seriously suicidal prior to the availability of SRS and only escaped the last attempt by a miracle.

[sd]

One can very easily argue that these surgeries are medically warranted.

Look at the suicide numbers for trans people... A 20%+ death rate is not exactly good odds.

Besides even the medical community is now standing behind it, so obiously they feel they are necessary as well.

[Beyond]

They're only 'corrective' or 'reconstructive' if the parts being worked on are somehow dysfunctional.  Any form of SRS is cosmetic surgery.

1. That's YOUR opinion, which isn't shared by many here.

2.  Try being a little respectful and understanding of other people here.

3.  If you really believe that BS you're spewing why transition at all?

4.  If you really believe that BS you don't belong here, try the "Transgender" section.

[BunnyBee]

I get where this whole thread is going-  surgeries should be covered by insurance companies, which i also don't agree with.  they're not necessary.

The AMA seems to disagree with you.  http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/AMA122.pdf

[Brielle]

Seems like there's a wolf in the henhouse.  As a preop transsexual, I find this abusive:

_{I get where this whole thread is going-  surgeries should be covered by insurance companies, which i also don't agree with.  they're not necessary.}

My belief (100%) is that if you are a classic transsexual, then SRS and FFS are reconstructive.  In the case of FFS, I think that if you pass 100% then any FFS would be plastic surgery in my books.  By the way, it freaked me out that someone would come here and make blanket statements that are obviously offensive and confidence shaking.  I come here looking for knowlege and support.  Thanks to those who are helping me with that.  To me it's like sharing love which is akin to sacred space.