Susan's Place Transgender Resources

In some ways I think 'sexuality' is really just a subset of gender as you describe it. I think you have given it more importance that it needs. There will also likely be some social satisfying in the answers in that many people won't admit to sexual motivators and will down play them. This may skew your results and this mode may not be that meaningful. Also is the question about physical mechanics or bedroom roles? I think there is a big difference.

The potential outcomes of physical transition may affect whether someone transitions or not. This should be a consideration. I don't think a mtf transtion is equivalent to a ftm transtion, both in the technology and the effects of drugs or acceptance in society. This will definitly impact on your results.  Sorry, just brain dumping thoughts here.

Also If you split sexuality out from gender why not things like presentation, role, and behaviour? I often hear other transexuals saying that they want to transition to be treated as their gender in society. I'm not sure that is quite the same thing you described as "gender". I guess it fits. But perhaps those finer distinctions are actually really important.

Trans people seem to be combinations of body desires, role, presentation and internal identity. All these things can be different by various degrees. I wonder if your modes should reflect this more?  My personal reason for wanting to 'transition' is to feel authentic. I think this is a lot to do with externalising my identity, being true to myself. I'm not sure your modes capture this. What do you reckon?

Also I have been thinking that my motivations have a lot to do with getting rid of the pain of dysphoria. Perhaps this could express itself as "Sex: I want my external body to match what I perceive my innate sex to be.", this might be the goal of transition but really the motivation is 'I don't want to be in pain anymore'. Something to think about?

Another rewrite of your "sex" mode could be I want my body to match what my mind is telling me should be there. I think just saying sex is an oversimplification.

Hope my comments are helpful.

Personally, I feel that my sexuality is a completely different issue and has absolutely nothing to do with my transsexual status.
Whether I am bi, pan, straight, gay or asexual has nothing to do with my gender.

Quote from: Vexing on May 14, 2009, 06:36:30 PM
Personally, I feel that my sexuality is a completely different issue and has absolutely nothing to do with my transsexual status.
Whether I am bi, pan, straight, gay or asexual has nothing to do with my gender.

Odd, I was about to write a post that completely agrees with that.

And questions exactly where you are coming from with your "sexuality" designation, Gina.

QuoteSexuality: I want my external body to be the best match for the kind of sexual experiences and sexual partners I want to have.  I want to change my external body so that both myself and my sexual partners will be more comfortable with my body.

and

QuoteFor example, I would speculate that a natal female who is attracted to females and wants to adopt a male role sexually, has less motivation to transition than a comparable natal male who is attracted to males and wants to adopt a female sexual role.  So, in this example, I would expect more natal males, who are high in sexuality modality score, to transition than similar natal females.

I'm not seeing how this is very much different than a current theory that's been floated between Toronto and Chicago, concerning "homosexual transsexuals." The implications seem to be that people attracted to people who are members of their targeted sex would have less motivation to transition.

I suppose I am wondering how that, prima facie, might be true. Bisexuality has been left out altogether as a relevant issue as well. Does it not "really" exist? Is it not a form of sexuality? Or if it is why is no weight attached at all to it?

I also have to agree with Nicky that the likelihood of having the questions skewed by folks unwilling to face the sexuality aspects of binary genders is prolly pretty large.

Your "sex" designation appears to be a good one. The gender-designator perhaps a bit less good than the sex designator (or perhaps it was the "make-up and dress" examples that bothered me in that as those are rather facile parts of gendering and there's a good deal more "gendered" behaviors that play into "gendering"). But, the sexuality designator has pretty much stumped me altogether.

N~

The additions she made to each definition made me change my ratio's.  Its all subjective anyway.

Sarah L.

Well, if we throw away the sexuality (which is irrelevant) we are left with only two numbers.

How about:

• Somatic dysphoria - the personal dislike of your body
• Social dysphoria - the dislike of your social role and other's perception of you

Even with two numbers, I'd have a difficult time choosing a ratio.

To my view, the sexuality modality relates to the way that the medical community has always looked at MtF transsexuals.  Admittedly, that is changing now, but you have to recognize that, until a few years ago, the Standards of Care would not let you be a MtF unless you professed a desire to have sex with men.

I would also ask why, if sexuality is not a factor, why does SRS create a vaginal cavity that is big enough to take a penis, as opposed to using the available skin to make a realistic-looking vulva?

I made a direct inquiry with Dr. Bowers and several other surgeons, about whether there was an alternate surgery for lesbian MtFs, who would prefer a realistic vulva to a deep vaginal cavity.  Dr. Bowers replied that she had developed a"modified surgery" and the others replied (essentially) that they could do it, but it had never come up or occurred to them.

On the one hand, I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see that results of a survey on this topic would show sexuality to be a non-issue.  On the other hand, I think that if sexuality was not an issue, most MtFs would prefer the modified surgery; however that does not seem to be the case.  I have to consider that it might be the case that some MtFs are in denial about the relative importance of sexuality.

As for whether gender is actually distinct from sex, all I can say is, that for me personally, it is.  I understand the distinction perhaps better than I describe or define it.  It's not about my body so much as it about my wordview, who my friends are, what type of friendship I have with them, how I feel, how I like to dress, and how I want to interact with other people.  While I recognize that these things are different, I see them as more similar than different; and to my view, they seem to fall under the broad category of gender differences.

---

Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 08:16:22 PM

---

Quote from: Sarah Louise on May 14, 2009, 06:54:26 PM
The additions she made to each definition made me change my ratio's.  Its all subjective anyway.

It is subjective now.  But I think I could design a survey that would measure these factors objectively.

If you would like to have sex with men, and you are female, it makes sense to have a vagina that can accomodate that. That does not sound like a motivator to transition. Function is important in the finished product. If you are going to transition you might as well get something that works for you. I would be surprised if someone choose looks over the possibility of being able to have vaginal intercourse with their partner, considering the looks are likely to pass muster anyway. Sexual function is important for a lot of people.

I think this could also come more under body needs than sexuality. Do women feel less fem if they have their breasts removed, or they loose half of their vagina through surgery? Probably yes.

Obviously MtF's in general don't prefer the modified surgery as your enquiries suggest though I wonder if most know of the possibility? I don't think they do.  I know a few transexuals that never bothered with the stents, why didn't they just get this alternative surgery?

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 08:14:09 PM
To my view, the sexuality modality relates to the way that the medical community has always looked at MtF transsexuals.  Admittedly, that is changing now, but you have to recognize that, until a few years ago, the Standards of Care would not let you be a MtF unless you professed a desire to have sex with men.

And we are all glad that this is no longer the case.
It presumes that lesbians are not women at all; which is f**king retarded.

QuoteI would also ask why, if sexuality is not a factor, why does SRS create a vaginal cavity that is big enough to take a penis, as opposed to using the available skin to make a realistic-looking vulva?

Because penetrative vaginal sex isn't a purely heterosexual activity.
Lesbians don't just look at the damn thing and make silly noises.

QuoteI made a direct inquiry with Dr. Bowers and several other surgeons, about whether there was an alternate surgery for lesbian MtFs, who would prefer a realistic vulva to a deep vaginal cavity.  Dr. Bowers replied that she had developed a"modified surgery" and the others replied (essentially) that they could do it, but it had never come up or occurred to them.

See above.

QuoteOn the one hand, I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see that results of a survey on this topic would show sexuality to be a non-issue.  On the other hand, I think that if sexuality was not an issue, most MtFs would prefer the modified surgery; however that does not seem to be the case.  I have to consider that it might be the case that some MtFs are in denial about the relative importance of sexuality.

No.
Instead, I think you have some startling misconceptions about homosexual women.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 08:14:09 PM
To my view, the sexuality modality relates to the way that the medical community has always looked at MtF transsexuals.  Admittedly, that is changing now, but you have to recognize that, until a few years ago, the Standards of Care would not let you be a MtF unless you professed a desire to have sex with men.

I would also ask why, if sexuality is not a factor, why does SRS create a vaginal cavity that is big enough to take a penis, as opposed to using the available skin to make a realistic-looking vulva?

I made a direct inquiry with Dr. Bowers and several other surgeons, about whether there was an alternate surgery for lesbian MtFs, who would prefer a realistic vulva to a deep vaginal cavity.  Dr. Bowers replied that she had developed a"modified surgery" and the others replied (essentially) that they could do it, but it had never come up or occurred to them.

On the one hand, I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see that results of a survey on this topic would show sexuality to be a non-issue.  On the other hand, I think that if sexuality was not an issue, most MtFs would prefer the modified surgery; however that does not seem to be the case.  I have to consider that it might be the case that some MtFs are in denial about the relative importance of sexuality.

As for whether gender is actually distinct from sex, all I can say is, that for me personally, it is.  I understand the distinction perhaps better than I describe or define it.  It's not about my body so much as it about my wordview, who my friends are, what type of friendship I have with them, how I feel, how I like to dress, and how I want to interact with other people.  While I recognize that these things are different, I see them as more similar than different; and to my view, they seem to fall under the broad category of gender differences.

---

Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 05:16:22 PM

---

It is subjective now.  But I think I could design a survey that would measure these factors objectively.

Has it come through that perhaps we'd tend to want "full vaginas" as a body part whether or not we were interested in sex and I suspect if you ask the men they'd prefer to have a full penis rather than a nubbin as well! Or perhaps asexual "ggs" could tell you if they'd prefer having a full vagina or a "vaginal facade." I think your reasoning there is flawed.

That may not be you, but the survey will not be surveying you, Gina.

It would be about transsexuals. You are one, but we aren't a vast amalgam with everyone exactly the same.

As in most social sciences research, hell, most research, you've specifically got particular notions in mind, but weighing those and taking some time to filter as much of your own bias out of your questions and your answer-weighting is gonna take some time.

If you presume, for instance, "I am the typical transsexual." Then you've got a couple of major difficulties from the git. One that you've made yourself the standard model and two that there is anything remotely like the typical transsexual.

Is sexuality important? Of course it is. Does the partner or lover desired make some aspect of transsexuals more or less motivated to transition? That seems like a huge leap to me. And I'm not exactly sure how you'd hope to justify that in a defense of your dissertation. Perhaps something to consider?   

Good luck with your ideas. They are interesting, even if I am having a couple of difficulties with them at this point. :)

Nichole

Quote from: Vexing on May 14, 2009, 08:28:51 PM
Instead, I think you have some startling misconceptions about homosexual women.

I doubt it.  I have been an accepted member of the local lesbian community for years, and have a number of close lesbian friends.  My inquiry asked about a vaginal cavity large enough to accept one or two fingers, which I understand to be a much more common practice amongst lesbians than use of an artificial phallus.  I also understand the second practice to be something that is requested substantially more often than it is offered.

---

Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 08:24:03 PM

---

Quote from: Nicky on May 14, 2009, 08:27:22 PM
If you would like to have sex with men, and you are female, it makes sense to have a vagina that can accomodate that. That does not sound like a motivator to transition. Function is important in the finished product. If you are going to transition you might as well get something that works for you. I would be surprised if someone choose looks over the possibility of being able to have vaginal intercourse with their partner, considering the looks are likely to pass muster anyway. Sexual function is important for a lot of people.

I think this could also come more under body needs than sexuality. Do women feel less fem if they have their breasts removed, or they loose half of their vagina through surgery? Probably yes.

Obviously MtF's in general don't prefer the modified surgery as your enquiries suggest though I wonder if most know of the possibility? I don't think they do.  I know a few transexuals that never bothered with the stents, why didn't they just get this alternative surgery?

From the pics I have seen, looks don't pass muster.  Or to quote Dr. Bowers, "If your gynocologist can't tell the difference, you need a new gynocologist."

I don't disagree with your contention that a workable vagina is important for MtFs who want to have sex with men.  But I am saying that the desire to have one would logically have to be at least a partial factor in deciding to transition.

As for the women who may not have known about the possibility of a modified surgery - I would say that, if it was important to them, they would have inquired.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 09:18:08 PM
I doubt it.  I have been an accepted member of the local lesbian community for years, and have a number of close lesbian friends.  My inquiry asked about a vaginal cavity large enough to accept one or two fingers, which I understand to be a much more common practice amongst lesbians than use of an artificial phallus.  I also understand the second practice to be something that is requested substantially more often than it is offered.

Despite this, you clearly know next to nothing about the sexual practice of lesbians.
As I said, being a lesbian doesn't preclude one from wanting and/or having penetrative sex. One of my ex's loved to be exhaustively finger-f**ked with as many fingers as possible. Your 'cosmetic' vagina idea wouldn't cut it in that scenario.
My point is this:
Wanting a full sized vagina does not mean you want a penis inside you!
It simply means that you want to be normal.
Seriously, how would I go about explaining to a potential female partner that my vagina is only half an inch deep, especially if I was stealth?

Quote from: Nichole on May 14, 2009, 08:39:44 PM
Has it come through that perhaps we'd tend to want "full vaginas" as a body part whether or not we were interested in sex and I suspect if you ask the men they'd prefer to have a full penis rather than a nubbin as well! Or perhaps asexual "ggs" could tell you if they'd prefer having a full vagina or a "vaginal facade." I think your reasoning there is flawed.

That may not be you, but the survey will not be surveying you, Gina.

It would be about transsexuals. You are one, but we aren't a vast amalgam with everyone exactly the same.

As in most social sciences research, hell, most research, you've specifically got particular notions in mind, but weighing those and taking some time to filter as much of your own bias out of your questions and your answer-weighting is gonna take some time.

If you presume, for instance, "I am the typical transsexual." Then you've got a couple of major difficulties from the git. One that you've made yourself the standard model and two that there is anything remotely like the typical transsexual.

Is sexuality important? Of course it is. Does the partner or lover desired make some aspect of transsexuals more or less motivated to transition? That seems like a huge leap to me. And I'm not exactly sure how you'd hope to justify that in a defense of your dissertation. Perhaps something to consider?   

Good luck with your ideas. They are interesting, even if I am having a couple of difficulties with them at this point. :)

Nichole

The standard surgery doesn't create inner or outer lips.  So it's incomplete genitals either way.  To my view, the modified version, with a narrow and shallow cavity, is closest to the real thing.

You misunderstand me in a major way.  This is an idea for a dissertation.  I wouldn't be making conclusions until the data was gathered and analyzed, so there is nothing to defend, at this point.

And by no means do I consider myself typical.  One thing in my novel, is that the character based on me sometimes yearns to be a "normal transsexual."  This means that she knows she is several standard deviations from the mean, wherever that mean migh be.  I fully understand that there is no such thing as a typical transsexual.  The entire basis of this proposed study is to try and use divergent measurements to illustrate how wide the variety actually is, and then to attempt to understand it.

I'm not building this concept around me, but it would be just as wrong to try and build it exclusive of me.

I see what you are saying, definitly the desire to have one is a reason to transition. But does this desire have to be a sexual motivation or is it more likely a motivation to be a woman in ways that is important to them?

It is kind of "I get hot over the thought of being a sexually functional woman so I am going to transition to become one" vs "I am a woman and when I transition I want to be a sexually functional woman because that is important to me"

Which one makes more sense?

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 09:38:57 PM

You misunderstand me in a major way.  This is an idea for a dissertation.  I wouldn't be making conclusions until the data was gathered and analyzed, so there is nothing to defend, at this point.

Actually, I didn't misunderstand you at all. You may not have written conclusions yet, but you sound like you've already made some conclusions, Gina, and will be furthering those, you expect, with your research.

That's pretty much the way this kind of social research works, Gina. And yes, I am the possessor of two master's degrees in social services areas and I know a small bit about statistics as well. Like 99% of the research is that someone has an idea and then sets about confirming their theories.

But, unlike in maybe chemistry it tends to be much more difficult to exclude bias, get a meaningful sample, exclude falsification by respondents, write one's questions in such a way that she/he excludes as much "leading" as possible and so forth.

The deal with defense is that if we can do what's been done so far, wouldn't you imagine the same problems will arise more acutely later on, with the statistical geniuses and the profs who'll be vetting your dissertation? They'll be much more difficult to pass off with "I've been a lesbian for 20 years and know a lot of lesbians."

And I agree, you cannot build the concept exclusive of you. But if you load up your concept with "this is logical to me" I think you're gonna have a lot of difficulty in excluding tester and evaluator bias in the end results.

Like I said, I wish you well. It's an interesting project.

N~

Quote from: Vexing on May 14, 2009, 09:35:13 PM
Despite this, you clearly know next to nothing about the sexual practice of lesbians.
As I said, being a lesbian doesn't preclude one from wanting and/or having penetrative sex. One of my ex's loved to be exhaustively finger-f**ked with as many fingers as possible. Your 'cosmetic' vagina idea wouldn't cut it in that scenario.
My point is this:
Wanting a full sized vagina does not mean you want a penis inside you!
It simply means that you want to be normal.
Seriously, how would I go about explaining to a potential female partner that my vagina is only half an inch deep, especially if I was stealth?

Ok, your girlfriend wanted it, because it felt good to her to have it done.  She did not do it because other lesbians wanted to do it to her.  This seems to be in accordance with what I said.  When men speak of wanting to to screw a woman, they are referring to taking their own pleasure, with the expectation that the woman will enjoy it too.  When lesbians speak of wanting to screw a woman, they are referring to their enjoyment that comes from giving the other woman pleasure, as she wants it.

The idea of "half an inch deep" is your own, not mine.  The modified surgery creates a cavity deep enough to accomodate the entire length of the finger.  As for stealth, come on.  A lesbian knows what a vagina looks like, smells like and tastes like, as well as the way it lubricates and opens and closes.  No surgery can come close to duplicating that.

So let's get this straight, is this your position:
MTF's who proclaim they are homosexual, yet want a full sized vagina are not homosexual. They are deluding themselves.
Yes?

---

Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 10:05:56 PM

---

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 09:58:41 PM
A lesbian knows what a vagina looks like, smells like and tastes like, as well as the way it lubricates and opens and closes.  No surgery can come close to duplicating that.

I wasn't aware that Lesbians were a hive mind.
Consider me educated...

Quote from: Nicky on May 14, 2009, 09:46:24 PM
It is kind of "I get hot over the thought of being a sexually functional woman so I am going to transition to become one" vs "I am a woman and when I transition I want to be a sexually functional woman because that is important to me"

Which one makes more sense?

Whichever way it is, I think the sexuality score measures it.  However, I think that in the final survey, which would have a couple of hundred questions and a sliding scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, in order to make an attempt to score these ratios objectively; both of those versions of the question would be in there.

---

Post Merge: May 14, 2009, 10:13:06 PM

---

Quote from: Nichole on May 14, 2009, 09:53:55 PM
Actually, I didn't misunderstand you at all. You may not have written conclusions yet, but you sound like you've already made some conclusions, Gina, and will be furthering those, you expect, with your research.

I'll grant that perhaps my bias precludes me from being able to see my bias.  That's why graduate students have faculty advisors while they are working on their theses.  However, I think the only conclusion I have made, so far, is that the attempt to understand transsexuality from this trinary perspective is likely to provide valuable insight.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 10:07:34 PM
Whichever way it is, I think the sexuality score measures it.  However, I think that in the final survey, which would have a couple of hundred questions and a sliding scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, in order to make an attempt to score these ratios objectively; both of those versions of the question would be in there.

Cool, yeah, I think they are very different animals. Perhaps the later is more a motivator for not transitioning rather than transition itself i.e. I'm not going to get what I want so I won't do it.

Quote from: Vexing on May 14, 2009, 10:04:43 PM
So let's get this straight, is this your position:
MTF's who proclaim they are homosexual, yet want a full sized vagina are not homosexual. They are deluding themselves.
Yes?

No, I am not saying that.  I am simply seeing a choice between a full-size vagina and a realistic-appearing vulva, and stating my opinion that the former seems to make more sense for a transwoman who wants to have sex with men, and the latter seems to make more sense for a transwoman who wants to have sex with women; as well inferring logically that the former would seem to correlate more with a high sexuality modality, and the latter would seem to correlate more with a high sex modality.

As for the "hive-mind" thing, I think you may have intended some sarcasm, and I am not going to try and reason with it.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 10:07:34 PM
I'll grant that perhaps my bias precludes me from being able to see my bias.  That's why graduate students have faculty advisors while they are working on their theses.  However, I think the only conclusion I have made, so far, is that the attempt to understand transsexuality from this trinary perspective is likely to provide valuable insight.

Yes, that's exactly why there are such advisors.

And three legs are perhaps better than two which would give your theory one more than the Blanchard theory has.

I have a bias as well though. I admit it. I am suspicious of very facile and easily drawn explanations for occurrences that may well be more on the order of honey bees, spiders, or even centipedes in the prevalance of legs on which to stand. :)

Elegance is wondeful and often true-ish as many elegant scientific theories show. But the stuff on which most of those theories found themselves are, perhaps, a bit less complex than the thoughts and feelings of 500-1000 transsexuals. :)

Best fortune.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 10:21:56 PM
No, I am not saying that.  I am simply seeing a choice between a full-size vagina and a realistic-appearing vulva, and stating my opinion that the former seems to make more sense for a transwoman who wants to have sex with men, and the latter seems to make more sense for a transwoman who wants to have sex with women; as well inferring logically that the former would seem to correlate more with a high sexuality modality, and the latter would seem to correlate more with a high sex modality.

Yet you stated that no surgery could make the vagina/vulva realistic enough to 'fool' a lesbian, so what would be the point of a semi-realistic vulva over a functional vagina? It wouldn't serve any purpose.
You're making a hypocrite of yourself :-\

Quote from: Vexing on May 14, 2009, 10:33:48 PM
Yet you stated that no surgery could make the vagina/vulva realistic enough to 'fool' a lesbian, so what would be the point of a semi-realistic vulva over a functional vagina? It wouldn't serve any purpose.
You're making a hypocrite of yourself :-\

I really think you are just being contrary and insulting at this point.

No, a neo-vagina cannot be realistic enough to fool a lesbian.  But that hardly means that a closer simultion would not be preferable.  That would be like saying that a styrofoam dildo is no different than a silicone one, since neither is a real penis.

Quote from: GinaDouglas on May 14, 2009, 11:37:16 PM
I really think you are just being contrary and insulting at this point.

Speculate all you like. I'm here for a rational debate.

QuoteNo, a neo-vagina cannot be realistic enough to fool a lesbian.  But that hardly means that a closer simultion would not be preferable.  That would be like saying that a styrofoam dildo is no different than a silicone one, since neither is a real penis.

What prohibits a transwoman from having BOTH depth and realism?
I've had a good look at a post-op vagina belonging to a friend and I was damn impressed.

Quote from: Vexing on May 15, 2009, 01:17:20 AM
What prohibits a transwoman from having BOTH depth and realism?

Several SRS surgeons, Reed and Bowers for example, have pictures of their finished products on their websites.  I presume these are examples of some of their best work.  I also offer the previously posted quote from Dr. Bowers.  While there has been a great deal of progress in the appearance area, there is still a great deal of progress to be made.

The WPATH website used to link to an article by Dr. Wilson, which was specifically about his attempts to create a realistic-looking clitoris (with pictures), in which he admitted his best work (pictures included) left "much to be desired."

So, evidently, the current state of surgical art is what "prohibits a transwoman from having both depth and realism."  Or perhaps realism at all, as I have seen no pictures of Bowers' modified surgery results.

So basically you're saying that current techniques produce the most realistic vulva possible, regardless of the depth?

Or, simply: you have to choose either depth or realism? Since when

In addition to the above reasons for wanting a full depth vagina:

I think that even a hard-core lesbian or asexual would have heard
about colovaginoplasty revisions to extend or restore depth to a vagina,
gulp and say, "What the heck, give me a full depth vagina, Doc."

The results on Bowers site are several years old (she admits as much) and are not representative of her current work. Also, at least one surgeon does create full labia, others can as well.


I'm curious, with so much variance between women down there, and how many women go looking that close, how many would see it and immediately know what they are seeing. I would think "I had a birth defect" would deflect any questions, if there was any.

Quote from: Vexing on May 15, 2009, 03:54:32 AM
So basically you're saying that current techniques produce the most realistic vulva possible, regardless of the depth?

Or, simply: you have to choose either depth or realism? Since when?

In the standard surgery, the majority of penile skin is used to line the interior of the vaginal cavity.  It is only logical that, with a smaller cavity, that would leave more skin available to produce features like the clitoral hood, labia majorum and labia minorum.

The answer I got from Dr. Bowers office:
Thank you for the email. I am happy to answer your questions.Dr. Bowers does perform a surgery that is similar to what you are interested in. We call it a "Partial" or "Modified" GRS. The same technique is used, so you should have a sensate clitoris. The external genitalia are created, but the vaginal cavity is very shallow. The outward appearance is that of a natal female, but there is not a vaginal cavity to speak of. The fee for this type of procedure is $16,500.I would be very happy to answer any further questions.Thanks again,Robin

While this seems to imply that the outward appearance of the modified surgery is better than that of the regular surgery, it does not say so explicitly.  You now have all the information I have.

Im truly intrigued what kind of SRS pictures have you been researching.

Correct me if im wrong, but arent you referring only to the penile skin inversion technique which requires a second step to define the labia?


I have seen recent 1 stage SRS pictures and they have well defined labia.

After reviewing the other thread and thinking on this, and the fact that it is being described as your "motivational ratio" for being trans, and my reply that

Quote from: FairyGirl on May 14, 2009, 06:07:49 PMmy Gender modality is actually a result of my Sex modality (i.e., I feel I am a woman, therefore I wish to live as a woman and have those life experiences) much more so than it is simply wanting to change my physical sex in order to live that way

And after seeing Janet Lynn's reply that

Quote from: Janet Lynn on May 14, 2009, 09:28:21 PMIn order to have the sexual experience I want to have, my body must be total female.

I have changed mine to Sex/Gender/Sexuality = 100/0/0

It seems in my case that everything ultimately stems from the Sex modality, regardless. I am MtF and plan to get SRS just as soon as I finish my RLE requirement. I cannot imagine doing any of this for the simple reasons given for either the Gender Modality or the Sexuality Modality. All my motivation comes from the fact of being a woman born into the wrong body, and the other things follow from that. For Sexuality, whether I'm with a man or a woman doesn't enter into it. I want to experience sex as a woman with either/or, and that's because I want to live as a woman (Gender) and that's because I am a woman (Sex).

Originally I thought that all I needed was to have my testicles and penis removed because I am sick of seeing them and want to relate to the world as a woman.  A vagina just seemed to be unnecessary.  But I was talking to a woman friend about this, saying I didn't expect to have vaginal intercourse.  She replied: You never know! 

So, if they are going to do the operation anyway they might as well build a vagina that can accept a penis or a woman's fingers.   You never know! ;)

- Kate

I can't speak for everybody here, but I just want to be normal. Had I been born with a body to match my mind, I would have a "Normal vagina/labia".

Again, it has nothing to do with sex but for me its about becoming a whole woman. I don't want to transition into a woman with another birth defect. I've spent my entire life with a birth defect. I'm sick of it and I just want to be normal.

I may not be perfect or look perfect but it will be closer than I am now. A lot closer. Enough to stop me from going insane and slashing my wrists or laying down on the railroad tracks.

I've seen a lot of srs result pics on the web and I must say many of them are disheartening and look odd and scary. But many are taken while there is still a lot of swelling, and some are from doctors not as experienced as others. I have also seen some  SRS results right next to Natal Vagina's and you could NOT tell the difference. Not all women look like the girls in Hustler or Penthouse with pretty pink shaven genitals. There are some really gross looking Vagina's out there on Natal women.

You cannot assume all women look smell or feel normal. How many women suffer from vaginal dryness? How many women over smell while others have little to no odor?  There are variations in everything and everyone.

How many women are celebate? Or nuns? Or have never had sex? Who cares?

I get the feeling Gina you have made the assumption all TS are the same. We are all different. Just as there are girly girls, tomboys, dancers/cheerleaders, pole dancers or nuns. We are all different people. Trying to generalize is futile.

Quote from: Lori on May 16, 2009, 12:30:36 PM
I can't speak for everybody here, but I just want to be normal. Had I been born with a body to match my mind, I would have a "Normal vagina/labia".

Again, it has nothing to do with sex but for me its about becoming a whole woman. I don't want to transition into a woman with another birth defect. I've spent my entire life with a birth defect. I'm sick of it and I just want to be normal.

I may not be perfect or look perfect but it will be closer than I am now. A lot closer. Enough to stop me from going insane and slashing my wrists or laying down on the railroad tracks.

...

I get the feeling Gina you have made the assumption all TS are the same. We are all different. Just as there are girly girls, tomboys, dancers/cheerleaders, pole dancers or nuns. We are all different people. Trying to generalize is futile.

I'm in agreement with Lori in all of the particulars I quoted above.

And particularly, Gina, in her view about the assumptions your study seems founded on. As I said, you shouldn't exclude your own experience; but like us all you have no other experience to use as a baseline when you first start. Surely by now you have read of others that "defy" what you've been calling "logical." Those notions may be logical to you, but then, so are/were the of Blanchard.Kurt Freund to themselves and to others.

At some point if you're going to do a meaningful research on TS motivation  I think as in any social science research you're gonna have to weight for falsification and go with what the transitioners say. Otherwise, like the above-named individuals, you'll be forced to dismiss anything you don't find personally "logical" as being a "lie."

I have a seven year relationship with my partner. As we have a romantic relationship that began after transition it's not a "husband" wife relationship and never was. In fact, she approached me. (small brag, I guess :D ) Thus, I identify as lesbian when asked, because I am I a long term reationship with another woman.

I've had sexual relations with men for long stretches of my life and sex with women as well in my life. So I tend to think of myself as "bisexual" when I have to accept an orientation label. But, none of that do I perceive within myself as having anything at all to do with my motivations to transition. Like Lori, that was driven entirely, or as best I can define it, anyhow, entirely based on my internal dissonance between my brain-sex and my body-sex.

After many unsucessful attempts to change brain-sex, I transitioned my body and am very content with exactly that. I love having sexual relations, I love living the life or just another woamn in USA. So both your gender and your sexuality designators come into play for me.

But like Lori I find that my life was composed of sex-dissonance prior to transition. That's the kernel and is the source from which those other two streams flow.

Thanks, Lori. Your excellent post was the nudge that tipped me into an explanation I hadn't quite been able to fasten onto for this thread. :icon_hug:

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on May 16, 2009, 01:40:53 PMBut, none of that do I perceive within myself as having anything at all to do with my motivations to transition. Like Lori, that was driven entirely, or as best I can define it, anyhow, entirely based on my internal dissonance between my brain-sex and my body-sex.

That's what I was saying exactly. For me it's all about the incongruity between mind and body: Everything I do is motivated by that, including anything else that could be defined under "gender" or "sexuality". I think this is making distinctions where none exist.