I have a friend in the UK who plans to have GRS with only the labia, urethra and clitoris constructed.  There will be no vagina.  Apparently this is called "cosmetic GRS".  Does anyone know anything about this?  She thinks it will be less invasive and make the recovery quicker and make dialation unnecessary.

Dr. Bellringer does that sort of surgery (for neutrois/gender null peeps)
http://www.bellringers.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/grs.htm

edit: the only difference is most of the skin tissues are tossed, there is still a "dimple" of a vagina for cosmetic reasons

Well... if you don't have a vagina, then yeah dilation isn't necessary.

A lot of people who are TS talk about how "I've never had sex and I never will" or that they are asexual, etc, etc, and so on. I think it's a huge mistake to go that far and not go all the way, you never know what may happen. But to each her own.

When I first started down this path I wanted only an orchiectomy and a penectomy - just removal of my male parts.  I was talking about it to a 70 year-old GG friend and how I don't need a vagina because I will probably never have intercourse.  Her reply, which I will never forget, was: "You never know."

I'm getting a full GRS and will dilate faithfully.  I would hate to have to pass up an opportunity just because I thought it would never happen.  After all: You never know.

- Kate

Dr. Bowers would do it but the cost was only a few thousand dollars under the full thing.  So like Kate, when the gods grant me the means I will go for the full thing too.

Bow down to the dilation gods.

---

Post Merge: February 21, 2010, 03:41:32 PM

---

It is possible  for GG women to get cancer of the vagina which requires its' removal.  Would they still be women?  Further, some GRS patients have failures of the vaginoplasty.  One woman on this very board was brave enough to describe her plight from GRS. Are they no less women? Just because it is not the choice you would make doesn't mean it isn't right for another.  Sorry, the phrasing and tone used in the prior post seem very "insensitive."  It could have been the same arguments used by a prejudiced anti-GRS crusader against all GRS recipients. Gee, lets make jokes and fun of other people!

well, i don't think there's anything wrong with that. i've actually considered that before, but now i've only decided on an orchiectomy, because i don't feel like a tiny penis and scrotum is masculine, or necessary to pay thousands of dollars to change into female genitals. so many transsexuals are highly concerned with their genitals. i wouldn't want to shove a stick up a vagina that doesn't want to be there for the rest of my life.

---

Post Merge: February 21, 2010, 05:01:42 PM

---

Quote from: Matilda on February 21, 2010, 04:17:27 PM
Yes, in some some other circles, they call it the "barbie doll" nullification surgery because like with all barbie dolls, there's no vagina.  But jokes aside, I wonder about the legalities of it.  Once a person has undergone this kind of "GRS", what are they afterward (legally speaking), I mean?  Female, still male or something in between?

how could they be male? some girls are born with a very thick hymen that covers their whole vaginal opening. i don't understand why you need a tunnel inside your labias to be a "real woman."

Quote from: Matilda on February 21, 2010, 05:02:04 PM
Hmmm...if you're referring to my post.  I didn't say they were "less women".  I asked what they were afterward (in the eyes of the law that is).  I think it's a valid question.  To be honest, I really don't care what people do to their own bodies since their actions don't affect me in the slightest.  But since this is a discussion forum, I have to wonder about the legalities of it (not that it really matters to me personally but someone else may find the information helpful.)

in my opinion, it shouldn't matter in the law, or even if they just got an orchiectomy, and were making the changes to female. i don't see how you could be male. i would actually find it pretty funny if someone ever said "if you don't have a vagina, you are a man." that would be one heck of a man.

Quote from: K8 on February 21, 2010, 03:29:54 PM
When I first started down this path I wanted only an orchiectomy and a penectomy - just removal of my male parts.  I was talking about it to a 70 year-old GG friend and how I don't need a vagina because I will probably never have intercourse.  Her reply, which I will never forget, was: "You never know."

I'm getting a full GRS and will dilate faithfully.  I would hate to have to pass up an opportunity just because I thought it would never happen.  After all: You never know.

- Kate

Exactly Kate, when I started out all them years ago I never thought Id be getting married to a wonderful guy who wants a full sexual relationship with me as a woman, you just never know, I can now give him that because Im now all woman.
p

I think it interesting that in at least some jurisdicitons an orchiectomy makes one female.  If I can follow the logic, it says that without testicles you are no longer male and therefore are female.  Or perhaps you get to choose.  A friend of a friend had his testicles removed because they became cancerous.  I think he would be horrified to be classified as female now.  (He is a gay man and is definitely a man.)  Still, the law has its own logic.  What I think it should be has no bearing on how it works.

I have no problem with someone wanting their boy bits removed without having a vagina fashioned.  I decided against doing that and am happy I had that choice available to me.  It is only lately that I've begun to know what I want, so I wouldn't hazard to tell someone else what to do.

- Kate

I have been on hormones for quite a long time, but have not had any surgery.  I am almost 60 and about to celebrate 25th anniversary with my wife.  We are very happy.  Prior to this relationship I had an 8 year relationship as a bottom to a very masculine male, and was lucky enough to have had other strong emotional and physical relationships with males and females.  A serial monogamist.  In all that time I have wanted to be passable as a woman have breasts and live femininely.  I have never fantasized about having a man enter me vaginally.  It seems superfluous to me to pay for and go through a longer recovery for something that I would never use, based on my desires and history.  To be perfectly honest an orchi seems to be exactly right for me. In fact, anything more would be more to conform to outsiders views, rather than my own.  I understand that appearing female, while having a penis, can be a problem in retirement homes.  (I'm not that old, but one has to plan-and I am a financial planner) I certainly understand how for others it is the "holy grail" and wouldn't knock their efforts.
As a point, Dr.Reed in Miami does the penectomy without vaginoplasty, but recommends at least a small vagina as it seperates the Labial lips, giving a more natural "look".  I do not believe that it leaves one looking like a "barbie doll", although if it did, I might go for it.  At least from the hips up. It has been pointed out that her feet are so small, in proportion, that she would fall over.  I do not have that problem. She also has no clitoris or labial lips as the original poster mentioned as desired by her friend.
Sorry if I blathered on too long.

I also would prefer a shallow hole, for cosmetic purposes, or.....to hide things in....just kidding!

Yes, I feel the same way as some of you.  At the very least I would like an orchi, but I do not see a need for a vagina....so, something in between is for me.   But I am not asexual, I would still wish for sexual energy and occasional orgasms, so I wonder how they connect everything without the vagina?  I guess just cut, stuff, and sew, huh?

i look at it this way, a male to female transsexual is not a type of man, it's a type of woman regardless of whether you get full srs or not. granted, if i had a vagina and perfectly formed female genitals, i think i would actually like them, but i just don't feel like my genitals are something i really need to like, they are just for expelling urine as far as i'm concerned, and i've never been able to see myself enjoying a man with a vagina more than a penis. nevertheless, i don't like it, but i just see it as another part of my body like my nose or ears. but, like everyone said before, you never know. when all the electrolysis, and hormone therapy is at it's best, i may just want to take that last trek.

I find this incredibly fascinating.  But, I don't understand her reasoning.  Constructing a vagina is not risk-free, but the surgeons have done thousands of these operations with a pretty high success rate.  Why would you want to get that far and not get the vagina?  Because you don't want to dilate?  I mean, it's not the end of the world.

Quote from: Matilda on February 21, 2010, 05:27:30 PM
True, it shouldn't matter, but is that really the case (legally speaking)?.  You see, I don't know.  That's why I asked.  Heck, more often than not, an orchiectomy is not enough to change your records with the SSA & in some states you can't even change your birth certificate after SRS.  I think knowing these things is important.  While some people may not care about their legal status as female, male, etc, there's always someone who does.

Actually, SRS is not the only way to change your gender marker.  I changed it after only having an orchidectomy.  What is important is the magic words "Irreversible genital surgery".  I don't know if my state will change it on my b/c, because I have not filed for it.  It is $140 to file for the change.  And right now it is not on my immediate 'To Do' list.

Quote from: blackMamba on February 21, 2010, 10:14:22 PM
I find this incredibly fascinating.  But, I don't understand her reasoning.  Constructing a vagina is not risk-free, but the surgeons have done thousands of these operations with a pretty high success rate.  Why would you want to get that far and not get the vagina?  Because you don't want to dilate?  I mean, it's not the end of the world.

well, that and it costs less and the recovery isn't so bad.

Quote from: NicoleFoxFan on February 21, 2010, 10:33:36 PM
well, that and it costs less and the recovery isn't so bad.

yeah, and its permanent.  Once that tissue is removed and discarded, you can't construct a vagina with it.  I agree with some of the others, that just in case I might want one of those things later on... 

I support her and her decision, it's just not my thing.

I agree, BlackMamba.  It isn't the decision that I made, but I will support her decision.

The thing that really tipped it for me was the realization that once I lost my donor tissue it would be harder to create a decent vagina.  So in for a penny, in for a pound.

But again: My path is not necessarily your path.  The point is to be comfortable with yourself, to be whole, and to be you.

- Kate

Some surgeons feel that not creating a vaginal canal is less risky surgery for patients over 60 with other concurrent medical problems. A lot of people can't afford GRS until they are that old.

i can see both sides of this procedure arguement but tbh i find it verry un nerving.

i want a loving relationship with my partner and for them to enjoy me too, what if you have such a operation only to find the one you love in years to come, what then??

im swwy but i would never gamble my happiness at the last hurdle, im paying for what i feel is the best and that is what i want