QuoteAs it pertains to this topic, yes you are correct, I am. Again, I don't support any notion that a post-op transsexual does not have functional female genitalia, meaning a vaginal cavity, along with labia, a repositioned urethra and a clitoris. That is what constitutes POST-OP on my book (and the title of this thread) and it is not related to your gender identity, feelings of being female, or whatever else you believe yourself to be.
What if the person has "the operation," but a less than satisfactory result? Which results in a loss of clitoral area, labia, or vaginal cavity? Does THAT mean that she is not a "real post-op?"
Even if she had an operation? I mean, the original intent of the term post-op was post-operative. PERIOD.
And would a post-operative woman without a vaginal cavity, or without a clitoris, or without labia go to a male prison? Yes, I am being a little silly, because I am noticing a return to the nasty judgments that were prevalent here a few months ago. We seem to be back to defining people even though not everyone can agree on the definitions.
What if somebody somewhere suddenly decided that only women that underwent colon-resection SRS were post-op, because it is "more-realistic?" Then all of the penile inversion SRS women would suddenly be inferior, and less than post-op. What if they figure out a way to transplant a real vagina from a donor to a trans-op woman? If that surgery became available and prevalent, would that make all of the women of this generation less than post-op because of a change in available technology?
There is always going to be "something better" in the future. But you don't live in the future.
There was a time when being post-op was having an orchiectomy, as that was the latest in technology too. I always assumed that post-op meant lack of penis. But the truth is, that the penis material is STILL THERE on current post-op women, as so defined. It is just inside, instead of outside. The clitoris is still a modified glans, so the nerve connections are still the same. We are all currently limited to the skin we were born with as children.
But then, Bornstein said every cell in her body was changed after seven years, so it could be argued that those new cells in a new form are not what they were at all. Nice thought. I think that it is really important that we each define things for ourselves using I-statements here.
If the f2m community were like the m2f, than almost everyone would be less than post-op.
But for some reason, they don't seem to feel the need to adhere to the latest technology to feel acceptable. Why such a dissonance between the two communities?
If Tink and Katia (love the new avatar) want to define themselves as post-op for having penile-inversion surgery, fine. Since this site is dedicated to empowering people, and not policing people, than I suggest everyone define
themselves appropriately, and refrain from creating definitions that label other people. The one common thread to everyone on this site seems to be that society views everyone here, regardless of surgery status to be a little less than "normal." I keep coming back to the same thing over and over and over. We are all a lot more alike than different.
