My first thought was, "where would one keep this artificially-grown vagina until it--and you--are ready for the implantation?"

Would we keep it in a shoebox, or does it need sunlight to grow and thrive? Ooh! Let's plant some lilies around it...

Haha, no. Such a thing would need to stay in the lab, and would probably require periodical care by a specialist. When it's ready, they'd call and tell you when to come for the operation.

Quote from: Beth Andrea on May 08, 2012, 08:38:36 PM
Would we keep it in a shoebox, or does it need sunlight to grow and thrive? Ooh! Let's plant some lilies around it...

You store it in the lab-ia, of course!

Haha, oh +1 for lab-ia

It wouldn't be grown as a vagina, just as a culture of cells in a lab. Then the cells would be used to construct the vagina in situ during surgery. At least that's my understanding of the process.

It would be so much cooler if they grew it on a flower though, like a stem just sitting there and then it blooms into a vagina haha

Oh to have a bloomin' vagina

*Sighs a wishful sigh*

http://www.change.org/petitions/continue-testing-of-buccal-cell-srs-for-surgery

They stopped researching it for transwomen. because they are ->-bleeped-<-s.

When I saw this subject title, it brought to mind the expression "grow some balls" which I've long thought was pretty sexist. Of course the implication is that men are braver then women which I just don't buy. I kinda like the idea of switching it on someone just to throw them for a loop.

Hm, I think it sort of sounds true, though. Not regarding courage per se, but rather risky tendencies. It's a well-known fact that testosterone tends to promote aggressivity and risk-taking behaviours. Since the "balls" are the things producing testosterone, to "grow some balls" would be "take some risks", or "be more daring", which whilst unpleasing to the ear is probably not sexist, objectively speaking.

Quote from: A on May 09, 2012, 04:59:27 PMIt's a well-known fact that testosterone tends to promote aggressivity and risk-taking behaviours.

I don't believe it and lots of people don't believe it. People are subjected to massive indoctrination for gender-expected behaviors from an extremely early age. It's so pervasive that it's hard to tell when we're doing it ourselves and it's really hard to look at it objectively. There's a great book on the subject exploring how science on the subject is incredibly biased and how the experiments themselves were seriously flawed in terms of how behavior was attributed to nature or nurture.

Hm, I believe that most socially induced gender-specific behaviours have a natural, physical basis. Of course, many, if not all, of them are exponentially reinforced by culture, some of them probably having such a little difference that they would often overlap without the effects of culture, but becoming very distinct in reality... But hormones, and perhaps genetics, play an undeniable role, I'd say.

Also, even though putting any trace of placebo effect aside is impossible, I'm pretty sure that my aggressive behaviours were greatly reduced with starting HRT. There are surely many similar (and reverse for FTMs) experiences in other trans people.

But anyway, I'm almost sure that testosterone is associated with risk taking.

...But aren't we -really- derailing the thread?

Quote from: A on May 09, 2012, 07:22:43 PM
...But aren't we -really- derailing the thread?

I already thought of that. If were inclined to continue the conversation, I'd start a new thread.

Coincidentally, there was some discussion of it in this thread, but that thread has now been locked.

I'm not a fan of debates, so no thanks. Let's just let the thread go back to the way of the righteous genital cultivating.

Quote from: dalebert on May 09, 2012, 07:33:24 PM
I already thought of that. If were inclined to continue the conversation, I'd start a new thread.
Coincidentally, there was some discussion of it in this thread, but that thread has now been locked.

It is a pity that thread got can, but the room was ricking with testosterone,

I think a lot of problem and disagreements are all semantics; it would be nice if Susan could administer a test before people are allowed to post; I think it is essential we understand the operational definitions and differences between gender identity, gender roles, sexual orientation, sexual ideation, gender identity spectrum, etc. I know some of these and other terms are defined somewhere in Susan's.

As for the topic at hand, and based in the state of the art in biotechnology, I would not be surprised if some of the parts needed to make a fully functional vagina would be supplied by biopharma by tissue engineering; say within 5 to 7 years.

I believe they could. And maybe do already have the ability to make the tissue. As they can now literally print brand new kidneys off of industrial printers, with specialized serums.

Put it in us will be harder.. I believe that will take another area of science.. Which would have to include the ability to implant nerves into the tissue and get the body to accept them.

I wonder if it would be possible to "fix" an older SRS vagina with newer techniques.

Quote from: A on May 10, 2012, 06:48:06 PM
I wonder if it would be possible to "fix" an older SRS vagina with newer techniques.

Yes

It shouldn't be too difficult. Simply surgically add the new mucosal cells to the existing vagina. More or less what the surgeries on natal women were doing.