Susan's Place Transgender Resources

THIS IS FOR POST OP GIRLS ONLY! IF YOUR NON-OP, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO JUST SKIP OVER THIS THREAD, PLEASE.

I posted this topic last night looking for some good answers to my questions. Unfortunately, the stupid non vs post op drama cropped up and my thread was locked before any had the opportunity to answer.

AGAIN, I ASK THAT ONLY POST OP GIRLS POST IN THIS THREAD. NOTHING AGAINST NON OP GIRLS, BUT I REALLY ONLY WANT THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY DEALT WITH THIS PROBLEM.

I was brutally mutilated by a barbaric society, through a destructive procedure which caused necrosis, scarring and the removal of nerves, a procedure which my ignorant parents consented to while I was still a baby and unable to make informed decisions about my body. (aka, circumcised.)

I understand that I can never get what was lost in terms of sensitivity, function and aesthetic but it frankly doesn't matter because I'm planning to go under a more radical procedure anyway.

For those post-op girls, did being circumcised reduce the amount of material that you had to work with? If you were average size, did it necessitate a colon operation? Does it even impact the process at all? Do you feel like your less seneate than other trans women?

If so, would it be a worthwhile endeavor to 'restore' my foreskin?

Also, I think of myself as less valid as a trans woman because of my animosity towards the people that butchered me, even though I'm going to get it removed anyway. Does anyone else feel similar?

JUST ONE MORE TIME, BEFORE YOU HIT THAT REPLY BUTTON. ASK YOURSELF: 'WHAT DO I HAVE SITTING BETWEEN MY LEGS?'

Since this is a procedure that is generally done only to small babies, how would any of us know if we are different from others?

     The best thing that any of us can do is to learn that we should only worry about the things that we can control.  You can't control what happened to you in the past, nor can I.  It is totally counter-productive to harbor resentment about it.  It's over, it's done.

      I *can* control how I feel about things and so can you.  It is not what happens to us that matters, it is how we react to it.  We can control our reactions and this can influence our destinies.

      So, to answer your question, yes, I am post-op and yes, I was also butchered (it's easier to spell that word than the proper one...).  Dr. McGinn was able to give me adequate depth and I feel like I'm extremely sensate all over.  My gynecologist, after giving me a complete pelvic exam, told me that if she hadn't known about me before I walked in, she'd have never known that I wasn't born this way.   I am now a natural appearing and feeling woman.

       I'll also say that GCS is very risky and may leave you unable to orgasm.  In fact, I understand the mortality rate for this surgery to be around 1 in a thousand.  That strikes me as high.  I knew all of this going in, but I knew I'd die anyway if I didn't have the surgery done.

        In my case, the surgery cured me of my GID.  My mind is clear for the first time in my life.  I can sit and think of nothing if I want.  I've never been able to do that before, ever.

      While I did live for decades as a trans person, I am now cured and no longer carry the trans label myself.  I am a woman, plain and simple.

And I am post op.
You have a valid question, sorry the other post got mucked up.

I agree with Joyce on all points.
<quote>
The best thing that any of us can do is to learn that we should only worry about the things that we can control.  You can't control what happened to you in the past, nor can I.  It is totally counter-productive to harbor resentment about it.  It's over, it's done.
</quote>

Dwelling on the past is not constructive. Swallow it. You are in control of tomorrow. Use your energy constructively. Stop and think. I am here right now. Where will I be tomorrow. What are my goals and how to accomplish them.

Dont worry about any reconstruction, the GRS surgeon will have more control and options for you.

After surgery, I am clear minded and a just a normal woman. I blend in well and have a great future ahead of me. Be positive and move on!

Good luck and welcome to Susans

Quote from: Re: Joyce on November 06, 2011, 12:05:53 PM
Since this is a procedure that is generally done only to small babies, how would any of us know if we are different from others?

I'm not sure I understand what your getting at here. Having been with other men who didn't get the snip is pretty conclusive evidence that I did.

Quote from: juliemac on November 06, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
Dwelling on the past is not constructive. Swallow it. You are in control of tomorrow. Use your energy constructively. Stop and think. I am here right now. Where will I be tomorrow. What are my goals and how to accomplish them.

If my post wasn't very clear, I'm not at all hung up on what happened to me. I certainly don't dwell on the past, I'm just concerned about how my past would impact my medical future. My goal is to eventually have fairly major and invasive surgery, while I don't like to think about it, It's important to consider the impact of things which might change how successful I am in achieving my goal.

Quote from: juliemac on November 06, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
Dont worry about any reconstruction, the GRS surgeon will have more control and options for you.

I couldn't really disagree more, the surgeon is very clearly limited by the amount of material that they have to work with. I'm only average sized, so I think that I will probably need as much help I can get in that department.

If you don't mind me asking, how much 'material' did each of you have to work with? Also, If I can share, I am much more of a 'grower' rather than a 'shower' does the surgery depend on size when you are erect or unaroused?

Also, thanks for welcoming me. If people can get past the flame wars, this place seems like it can be a very useful source.

Quote from: Guantanamera on November 06, 2011, 09:59:28 AM
For those post-op girls, did being circumcised reduce the amount of material that you had to work with? If you were average size, did it necessitate a colon operation? Does it even impact the process at all? Do you feel like your less seneate than other trans women?

If so, would it be a worthwhile endeavor to 'restore' my foreskin?

Also, I think of myself as less valid as a trans woman because of my animosity towards the people that butchered me, even though I'm going to get it removed anyway. Does anyone else feel similar?

The tissue that comprises the foreskin is a very small portion of the tissue used to create the vaginal barrel or the hooding for the clitoris.  It's presence or absence is not really a factor in the reconstructive surgery.  Nor would it's absence require a sigmoid colon section.

I was circumcised and it was not a factor in my surgery.  Do not attempt to get a reconstruction for a foreskin if all you are going to do is have it removed.

Why would you feel you are less of a woman because you were circumcised?  I'm not sure I understand.  Your birth defect or it's disfiguration should have nothing to do with your mental state.

-Sandy

Quote from: Sandy on November 06, 2011, 12:53:24 PM
I was circumcised and it was not a factor in my surgery.  Do not attempt to get a reconstruction for a foreskin if all you are going to do is have it removed.

Why would you feel you are less of a woman because you were circumcised?  I'm not sure I understand.  Your birth defect or it's disfiguration should have nothing to do with your mental state.

-Sandy

As per my understanding, one does not 'get' a reconstruction. According to what I know, you simply stretch the skin over the glans causing new skin growth, eventually the new skin will cover the glans without being stretched, affording a reconstructed foreskin.

I don't less valid because of the procedure, rather the animosity towards those that performed the snip are what make me feel less valid. I think that most trans women would simply not care what state their birth-assigned genitals were in. (a la, 'I'm having it snipped off anyway, why would I care that a little part was trimmed already?')

However, my animosity doesn't arise from the state of me genitals, but rather the fact that someone violated my right of self-determination in seeking to modify my body in a way that wasn't necessary and is inconsistent with accepted standards of care in civilized nations.

(For those of you that missed it, my opening rant was ironic. For those of us, unfortunately, located within the United States, our society condemns the 'Female Genitalia Mutilation' of girls in other societies by using language like that. However, we subject the same barbarism on our boys at a much higher rate without any consideration. )

Circumcision was and primarily done for sanitary reasons, Removal of that tissue does not decrease the sensor count of the head of the penis. The idea being that there were no folds to hold moisture, thus remove a potential batirail growth site. This has been done to millions of men over thousands of years with little effect.

I was circumsised as a baby, and again when I had my GRS as I have no clitorus. Female mutilation removes the clitorus, no surgeon in the US has removed the tip of any male babies penis. If you had a problem, then it was accidental not intentional.

Quote from: juliemac on November 06, 2011, 02:09:07 PM
Circumcision was and primarily done for sanitary reasons, Removal of that tissue does not decrease the sensor count of the head of the penis. The idea being that there were no folds to hold moisture, thus remove a potential batirail growth site. This has been done to millions of men over thousands of years with little effect.

I was circumsised as a baby, and again when I had my GRS as I have no clitorus. Female mutilation removes the clitorus, no surgeon in the US has removed the tip of any male babies penis. If you had a problem, then it was accidental not intentional.

I suppose then we should all cut our ears off? Doing so would reduce the number of folds where gunk can grow, and the ear exists only to protect the ear canal, similar to the foreskin. Although the external ear does help in positioning sound waves to be better heard by our inner ears, just like the foreskin plays a normal role in the male sexual response, removing it wouldn't necessarily decrease our ability to hear.

The only reason that cutting off a piece of a person's genitalia is okay, is that it is a social norm. We could just as easily be living in a society where we lopped off our ears to increase sanitation. 

I never claimed that this particular method of barbarism removes nerves from the glans, that's not true. However, there is a rich ring of nerves which surround the glans which provide stimulation to non-mutilated men. Of greater importance is the way in which removing the foreskin alters the mechanics of sex for both genders: The foreskin acts as a sleeve which the penis slides through during penetration. For males, (It has been reported.) this is a source of stimulation and protects the glans from becoming chaffed in any circumstance in addition to keeping the glans hydrated. For women, the foreskin prevents the penis from wicking away to much moisture during intercourse. Incidentally, cultures which do not mutilate their males have a statistically significant reduction in the amount of women suffering from insufficient lubrication.

Of course, the argument for the biological necessity of the foreskin is much more convincing from an evolutionary perspective. IF the foreskin was unsanitary, and caused infections, it would be the subject of selective force. i.e. Men born without or reduced yucky bits would be more likely to survive. If this were the case, the foreskin would decrease in prominence over generations. However, NO viable medical, biological, anatomical, or sexological organization claims that the foreskin is a vestigial organ, much less that it should not be removed unless it is specifically causing problems.  Of greater importance though, is the fact that foreskin exists in ALL mammals. This would suggest, and really who would'a thunk that organs had actual uses, that the foreskin actually serves a biological necessity!

Aside from the biological importance of the foreskin, the question of best practice and ethical standards looms large over body mutilation. Even if, there were no negative impacts and the possible benefit was great (although that certainly isn't the case.) altering someone's body without consent in the abscence of medical necessity is unethical no matter which way you spin it. Consider this proposition, it is widely known that the removal of pubic hair reduces the amount of bacteria around the genitals. Should we then as a society that provides a safety net mandate that individuals shave their pubes in order to decrease the cost of medical care from infections? Certainly, anyone would consider that a crazy proposition, as the incidence/cost of infections is minimal, as they can be treated vary effectively, and that the right of the individual to self-determination trumps any negligible benefit in costs. 

As for the removal of the clit, many forms of FGM exists in backward countries to this day. Although the majority of reported incidences concern the implantation/reconstruction of the hymen, or the removal of labia for aesthetic/cultural reasons. And as for the prevalence, of circumcision, it is purely a Western phenomenon that had died out (except in the Judaic tradition.) and was revived in the Victorian era. Don't try to pass it off as some sort of universal cultural institution.

TL;DR: Please don't mess with the transsexual liberal arts student with a background in philosophy and history involved in the body mod community concerning the ethical ramification of butchering someone.

She simply explained the reason the culture believed it needed to be done. 

      So much for your statement: 

     "If my post wasn't very clear, I'm not at all hung up on what happened to me."

Quote from: Re: Joyce on November 06, 2011, 08:20:42 PM
She simply explained the reason the culture believed it needed to be done. 

      So much for your statement: 

     "If my post wasn't very clear, I'm not at all hung up on what happened to me."

My cogent writing style is the result of years of reading the Times, WSJ, Der Speigel, and The Guardian. (And the inordinate amount of time that I've spent analyzing historical/philosophical texts for school.) My post was more of an sociopolitical diatribe, than a personal rant.  I suppose I slipped into Ethics Bowl mode for awhile haha.

Personally, I realize that I can no more compensate for the color of my eyes and my broad shoulders than my mutilated junk. It's simply a fact, a state of being that I can't change so why care?

For others however, I advocate strongly against breaching the rights of others to self-determination, up to and including Physician Assisted Suicide as a matter of principle.

Oh, Guantanamera, es ist übrigens "Der Spiegel" nicht "Der Speigel" ein kleiner aber wichtiger Unterschied. :-)

Also einfach nur so.
Ich vermute dass Du also recht fließend in Deutsch bist?

Schon interessant zu hören.

Mit bestem Gruß,
Axelle

Hi,

A lot of emotion so shall steer of that as otherwise it diminshes the value of the response and am not interested in a fight.

I was circumcised a bit before i was 1

I think it was small when relaxed, i dunno if it was of average size or not when erect.  i dont recall anyone saying it was of "wow" size

i am sensate, i have no idea if its more or less sensate but orgasm is not a problem.

I have around 5.5 inches depth, seems more than enough for me if my previous 'outty' size was the average

Some testicular skin was used to make the lining longer, external result seems the same as i would imagine it should.

Thoughts?:

Recovery was a doddle, i think perhaps having been circumcised was a good thing as it meant the lining was made to be of a set depth so had less likliness of shrinkage.  I could be wrong however but i can only do this once.

If you want specific questions answered then you could PM me as i dont look back here that often and would hate to miss a genuine question if there is a need.

Nat

Quote from: Guantanamera on November 06, 2011, 01:07:39 PM

(For those of you that missed it, my opening rant was ironic. For those of us, unfortunately, located within the United States, our society condemns the 'Female Genitalia Mutilation' of girls in other societies by using language like that. However, we subject the same barbarism on our boys at a much higher rate without any consideration. )

I'm sorry, but I have to introject here. You have every right to be opposed to circumcision for the reasons you have listed, but it is patently ludicrous to make a comparison between modern day circumcision and female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation, although it varies, often includes the removal of most or all of the clitoris and creates immense danger and pain for women to have sex or bear children. Think what you want about circumcision, but unless you were castrated as a result of circumcision or most of your penis was accidentally removed in the process, the procedure is not even remotely comparable to the clitorectomies that still occur all over the world.

That being said, I am post-op and was circumcized. My surgeon explained to me that the fact that I was circumcized wouldn't make much of a difference for achieving adequate depth, and he did not feel it was necessary to use colon skin or any skin grafts in my SRS procedure. He also explained that younger patients are typically a bit more difficult to perform surgery on simply because the skin is tighter and less malleable. However, I am extremely happy with my results. I initially had 6 inches of depth after surgery (I'm down to 5 now which is still adequate) and am very sensate (probably wouldn't want to be any more sensate than I am currently). Before surgery, I would say I was average sized. I hope this answers your question/calms your nerves a little bit. Being circumcized definitely will not impede you from having good results with SRS.

I was circumcised as a child and I had no issues with my GCS but I didn't have the colon one either. I have around 5+ inches depth at this point.

Well even though I'm not yet post-op doesn't mean I haven't researched the procedure.

Generally speaking the foreskin would be used to line the area around the urethra. The aesthetic benefit is the appearance of being "pink" when aroused sexually.

I believe that Suporn goes into detail in his "papers", you can find them on his site. From what I recall the absence of foreskin DOES NOT distract from sensation, only appearance.

In regards to circumcision. A little research will show the benefits. Infection of the foreskin in the past lead to male infant mortality at the very worst. Loss of the penis in awful cases. Infertility in bad cases. In the best infection scenario the parents lost a lot of sleep tending to a very cranky newborn/infant/toddler age son.

1 argument pro-circumcision:
Researches have shown that circumcision might increase in about 30% the chances of not getting infected by AIDS, which lead some african countries where HIV is a concern to make it compulsory.

For a transexual, as it has been said by others here (but I wont join the team since I was not circumcised) shouldn't be a concern since quite often skin grafts from the scrotum are used to help creating vaginal line with enough depth.