Gender change as a body mod

[cindybc]

Live and let live. I just don't expect to be a spectator any time soon. I have no fear of lizards snakes or any other reptiles or spiders, or any type of insects except for the ones that sting. Same with animals, big or small. I love nature and all it's denizens and I am only 5' 3"  125 lbs and feed cub bears out of my hand while the mommy is just off a distance watching unconcernedly. But I don't really think that going to see a lizard man is going to be on my agenda for anytime soon

Cindy

[Jaycie]

If SRS became a body modification it would devalue the medical necessity arguement of the surgery for intersex and transsexual individuals.  I am sorry, but I am thinking beyond the whole your body your choice idea to the actual medical justifications.  SRS is begining to be covered by insurance companies because the medical necessity is begining to be understood.

I am sorry this should not be used for body modification purposes.  This is a medically necessary surgery for some of us, and devaluing it to a body modification is something I cannot accept.

There needs to be standards exactly to prevent this, and we need to keep this a TS and IS ONLY surgery.  Its medically necessary for us, and letting people do it for body modification would devalue it and cause untold damage.

Doesn't that speak to a larger societal problem rather than "omgz dont' devalue what i want!!1!" ?  If it's medically necessary then insurance should cover it. If not? Then no, it shouldn't. That's not a difficult concept to understand one would think. So, rather than going down a completely self-serving line of thinking it might be more beneficial to realize the real scope of the issue.

[Alison]

I think ultimately it should be left up to the individual.  Not to sound dumb or anything, but people have to live with their life choices, and no one is going to stop them from doing what they want either way.  If they have the money and want to do it the legal and safe way, then by all means go ahead I guess.  It's better than them dying doing it by themselves and bleeding to death or something.  You need to draw the line of safety somewhere as well.

While ideally I'd agree to modify oneself safely is the best case scenario.  But it also comes down to that its the individuals choice whether to follow "safety codes" when making those decisions of what to do when, and how.  Safety is largely a personal responsibility.  And 'unsafe' procedures won't have a better chance at becoming safer until they are honed and developed, 100 years ago very simple surgeries of today were considered very dangerous because they weren't yet perfected.

There needs to be standards exactly to prevent this, and we need to keep this a TS and IS ONLY surgery.  Its medically necessary for us, and letting people do it for body modification would devalue it and cause untold damage.

How is it any different for a breast cancer survivor getting a breast augmentation covered by insurance because of 'medical necessity' (which is a whole other argument in itself but i'll use your term for now).  And a random person getting a breast augmentation as a body modification and paying out of pocket?

Basically it's the same procedure.  Does that devalue the surgery the breast cancer survivor had to reconstruct their breast?  Absolutely not.  Why should this be any different?

[Hypatia]

If SRS became a body modification it would devalue the medical necessity arguement of the surgery for intersex and transsexual individuals.  I am sorry, but I am thinking beyond the whole your body your choice idea to the actual medical justifications.  SRS is begining to be covered by insurance companies because the medical necessity is begining to be understood.

I am sorry this should not be used for body modification purposes.  This is a medically necessary surgery for some of us, and devaluing it to a body modification is something I cannot accept.

There needs to be standards exactly to prevent this, and we need to keep this a TS and IS ONLY surgery.  Its medically necessary for us, and letting people do it for body modification would devalue it and cause untold damage.

This is so right on, Amy. Already it's been damn near impossible for us to get our serious medical needs covered by insurance because transphobes accuse us it's "elective surgery" (the hell it is, unless a frickin appendectomy is elective too), they compare it to getting a "nose job" which is as ignorant and stupid as it gets--but that has been the prevalent attitude on the whole, which makes life that much harder on us. Some smart alecks have also tried to put us down by comparing TS to aptonemophilia, a word I never would have heard of except for transphobes, it's a mental illness in which people feel the need to amputate healthy limbs. As Amy said, we are just now beginning to find a little hard-won understanding and rights, but this devalues our specific experience and needs, we are not mentally ill or doing this for kicks--and until the public understands that, we'll never be anything in their eyes but a freak show. It has serious real-life consequences for us, like no insurance coverage.

I don't care in the slightest whatever bod-mod individuals may choose for themselves--go ahead, knock yourself out, it's your body--but this has nothing whatever to do with TS and my tolerance of your fun ends at the line where it infringes on my rights.

[Caroline]

This is so right on, Amy. Already it's been damn near impossible for us to get our serious medical needs covered by insurance because transphobes accuse us it's "elective surgery" (the hell it is, unless a frickin appendectomy is elective too), they compare it to getting a "nose job" which is as ignorant and stupid as it gets--but that has been the prevalent attitude on the whole, which makes life that much harder on us. Some smart alecks have also tried to put us down by comparing TS to aptonemophilia, a word I never would have heard of except for transphobes, it's a mental illness in which people feel the need to amputate healthy limbs. As Amy said, we are just now beginning to find a little hard-won understanding and rights, but this devalues our specific experience and needs, we are not mentally ill or doing this for kicks--and until the public understands that, we'll never be anything in their eyes but a freak show. It has serious real-life consequences for us, like no insurance coverage.

I don't care in the slightest whatever bod-mod individuals may choose for themselves--go ahead, knock yourself out, it's your body--but this has nothing whatever to do with TS and my tolerance of your fun ends at the line where it infringes on my rights.

Alison has already addressed how you can have the same surgery being considered elective in some circumstances and being medically necessary in others.  It's really quite simple, get diagnosed as having gender dysphoria and it's medically necessary, can't/won't get diagnosed then it's elective and you have to pay for it.

I find it quite ironic that you're accusing people of "infringing on my rights" when it's YOU who is infringing on people's rights not them.  It never ceases to amaze me how ready people are to trample on other groups of people to further their own ends rather than fight the more difficult (but in the end more rewarding) battle of properly educating people about the issue and allowing both groups of people to do what they want/require.

I don't think anybody should be considered a freak show, be it body mod types or TG people.  I'd rather fight for everybodys rights to be themselves than just fight the selfish battle for my own.

[seldom]

The thing is I don't think Alison grasps it, or really the long term implications of this.  Trust me this would hurt us more than anything else, and I am not about to stick up for anybody who does SRS for kicks or as a "body mod".  It suggests they are using a surgery that we have fought long and hard to get recognized as medically necessary and are FINALLY gaining some leeway on, and devaluing it. 

This "body mod" attitude was EXACTLY why the standards of care were even created, these are the exact people WHO SHOULDN'T get this surgery.

Also the BA for breast cancer survivors is a poor example.  Breast cancer survivors have not had one of the worst histories of civil rights in this country and were at least taken seriously from the start.  We on the other hand are constantly devalued.  Its a poor example and ignores a fundamental societal position that we are in. The only way that we are going to gain any insurance coverage is to prove this is medically necessary, people who identify as male (and I am sorry if you were born male, identify as male, and live as male you are NOT transgender) should not have ANY access to SRS.  If one opens the doors to body modification, one CLOSES the doors to years of hard fought battles with insurance providers, and slams the door shut that was just beginning to open.   

The SoC were set up so we could one day get insurance coverage.  SRS should be strictly for those who are transsexual and those born intersex, and it ends there, if SRS was available to anybody else one runs the risk of infringing on our rights. 

There are PLENTLY of surgeries which are only performed on those with a diagnosed medical condition.  We are not trampling on any rights of people who IDENTIFY AS MALE.  Rather we are making sure that we keep our ground for hard fought battles regarding a surgery that is medically necessary for us.  The minute it becomes "elective" or a "body mod" for anybody, is the minute we lose access to any possibility of this being covered for insurance.

The truth is those of us who oppose this have a much deeper understanding of the implications.  The door is only open to TS and IS individuals for a REASON, and this surgery needs to STAY that way.  The minute we open that door, the damage regarding society and medical insurance may be too much to repair.  Individual rights and choice only matter when it does not do untold amount of damage to a group on a societal and medical basis that blocks any future advancement.  Sorry...by doing this they are stepping on TS and IS peoples toes in a big way.  This is not hypocrisy, it is the reality that our individual rights for this surgery and it being respected as a legitimate medical procedure that is seen as medically necessary, trumpets a persons desire for an elective body modification that has NOTHING to do with a medical condition.  I could go beyond the medical implications, because the societal ones are even worse. 

There is a reason why surgeons keep this as a TS and IS only surgery.  Its for good reason.  They know the ethical, medical, insurance and societal issues this creates the minute this becomes an ellective surgery that somebody who does not have a medical justification gets it.  The long term issues that this present is astonishing.  Thats the problem Alison, you do not grasp AT ALL the problems this would create. 

[Caroline]

The thing is I don't think Alison grasps it, or really the long term implications of this.  Trust me this would hurt us more than anything else, and I am not about to stick up for anybody who does SRS for kicks or as a "body mod".  It suggests they are using a surgery that we have fought long and hard to get recognized as medically necessary and are FINALLY gaining some leeway on, and devaluing it. 

This "body mod" attitude was EXACTLY why the standards of care were even created, these are the exact people WHO SHOULDN'T get this surgery.

The SoC were set up so we could one day get insurance coverage.  SRS should be strictly for those who are transsexual and those born intersex, and it ends there, if SRS was available to anybody else one runs the risk of infringing on our rights. 

Alison grasps it, as do I.  Maybe it would hurt us, but I'm a firm believer that anybody who tries to deny other people rights to improve their own situation makes it ok for other people to do the same and therefore can't complain when they themselves get a raw deal.

I'm not a massive fan of the SoC.  In my opinion the medical profession should simply determine if the patient is sane and knows the risks and downsides to whatever they want to do.  Diagnosis of GID should only be necessary to get insurance coverage (or free healthcare in countries that have it).

I guess if only TS and IS people are allowed SRS that rules me out then...

[seldom]

I am sorry, neither you nor Alison really do understand this.  As much as you don't like the Standards of Care.  I don't like them either.  I know for a fact this has to be restricted to transsexual and intersex individuals.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

If you don't grasp this, you really do not grasp the long term fight that has been going on for years.  It would ruin the party.  The medical establishment who handles TS medicine has taken years to establish the proceedures of TS medicine as legitimate, and this overnight would destroy that legitimacy and cause significant damage.

It is your and Alisons lack of grasping that issue which is at the source of the problem here.  Those of us who say absolutely not, have a much deeper understanding of the implications of how this could unravel years of work on both the part of the medical and activist community.

It is something you obviously do not understand and do not grasp. 

[Caroline]

I am sorry, neither you nor Alison really do understand this.  As much as you don't like the Standards of Care.  I don't like them either.  I know for a fact this has to be restricted to transsexual and intersex individuals.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

If you don't grasp this, you really do not grasp the long term fight that has been going on for years.  It would ruin the party.  The medical establishment who handles TS medicine has taken years to establish the proceedures of TS medicine as legitimate, and this overnight would destroy that legitimacy and cause significant damage.

It is your and Alisons lack of grasping that issue which is at the source of the problems. 

Can you please explain to me in simple words exactly what I'm missing then because it seems to me that I'm getting what you're saying but considering it a secondary concern to my personal moral code.

[seldom]

SIMPLE TERMS.
The MINUTE this gets performed on somebody who is NOT TS or IS is the MINUTE that this is PERMANENTLY considered an ELECTIVE SURGERY by insurance companies, the medical field, the government, and society.  All GAINS we have made in recent years go up in a puff of smoke because somebody wants this as a body modification.  Its the ultimate pandora's box.  If you do not grasp this, you have serious issues of thinking about things on a higher level and cannot grasp the social, medical, and political complexity of being transsexual. 

I have explained everything in my posts, if you don't grasp the issues, you have serious problems, and there are serious issues with your own moral code.  You simply do not get it. 

[Gabrielle]

SIMPLE TERMS.
The MINUTE this gets performed on somebody who is NOT TS or IS is the MINUTE that this is PERMANENTLY considered an ELECTIVE SURGERY by insurance companies, the medical field, the government, and society.  All GAINS we have made in recent years go up in a puff of smoke because somebody wants this as a body modification.  Its the ultimate pandora's box.  If you do not grasp this, you have serious issues of thinking about things on a higher level and cannot grasp the social, medical, and political complexity of being transsexual. 

I have explained everything in my posts, if you don't grasp the issues, you have serious problems, and there are serious issues with your own moral code.  You simply do not get it. 

I don't see how someone who is into body modification has any impact on myself.  They are not diagnised with GID while I am.  The accepted medical treatment of my disorder is GRS.  Someone who is into body modification is not even under the transgender classification to my knowledge.

[Caroline]

SIMPLE TERMS.
The MINUTE this gets performed on somebody who is NOT TS or IS is the MINUTE that this is PERMANENTLY considered an ELECTIVE SURGERY by insurance companies, the medical field, the government, and society.  All GAINS we have made in recent years go up in a puff of smoke because somebody wants this as a body modification.  Its the ultimate pandora's box.  If you do not grasp this, you have serious issues of thinking about things on a higher level and cannot grasp the social, medical, and political complexity of being transsexual. 

I have explained everything in my posts, if you don't grasp the issues, you have serious problems, and there are serious issues with your own moral code.  You simply do not get it. 

I think you're rather overstating how quickly it'd happen but yep I agree it opens a pandora's box.  As somebody who has been shoved on a 6 year waiting list by the NHS to even see a therapist about gender issues I understand the problems that can be faced all too well. 

You can insult my intelligence if you want but I'm thinking from a wider perspective of freedoms in general not such a TScentric view of the universe. 

This kind of thing makes me laugh when I think about it alongside people complaining about non-transinclusive ENDA.  Think about your problems and yours only, the world turns out fine that way... Right?

[ketti]

I have explained everything in my posts, if you don't grasp the issues, you have serious problems, and there are serious issues with your own moral code.  You simply do not get it.

I don't get it either.
It is the reason for a surgery that should make it covered by insurance, not the surgery in it self. We could draw a parelell with electrolysis. I get full financial coverance for it through the swedish health care system. How is that possible when electrolysis is aviable to anyone who wants it? Using your reasoning shouldn't the liberal aviability of electrolysis devalue my use of it, resulting in no financial support? I fail to see that your point is as big as you are making it.

[seldom]

Taking the medical issues are in part central to the issues.  Also this is separate from the ENDA issues, this is dealing with a procedure that is central to the treatment of transsexual and intersex people, and one that gets a great deal of public attention.  In other words, its under a microscope. 

I don't see this as a personal freedom issue either, there are plenty of procedures that you can only get if you are diagnosed with a condition.  Its part of medicine.  SRS should be kept out of the realm of mere plastic surgery, if it will ever be covered by insurance, it should only be available to those diagnosed with those condition(s).  I am not a fan of the wait, but I am a firm believer in this concept.  The minute it  becomes cosmetic in any form it opens widespread societal risks.  If you do not believe this is the case, you have very little grasp of TS long embattled history where we are just starting to make some headway on. 

Sorry our rights for insurance coverage, medical, political and societal respect, are more important than somebodies desire to get this surgery as an elective body modification.

At least I understand history and at least I grasp the issue with greater depth. I cannot say the same for you.  Maybe you are on the waiting list for a reason.  Which by the way, if this surgery were to get outside of TS and IS only, guess what, there goes your chances of ever getting it covered by the NHS. 

[Gabrielle]

At least I understand history and at least I grasp the issue with greater depth. I cannot say the same for you.  Maybe you are on the waiting list for a reason.

You know, we are all here to show our points of view, and none of us will ever agree on everything.  But this last sentence I don't think was needed at all.  It does nothing to prove your point except add fuel to the fire.

[Caroline]

Amy T: You know, it's possible for two people to both understand an issue and still have different opinions on it.  We all look at an issue and process it through our own set of values and priorities which gives a large scope for differing opinons.  It's rather tactless to repeatedly accuse somebody of not grasping the issue even after you've explained it to them.

[SusanK]

Lots of debate. But somehow it seems the obvious question is, "Isn't a boy/man with a vagina a female to male or transman?" So what's the difference if a man wants a vagina and stay male? Man becomes transman?

Ok, I know all the implications and legal entanglements associated with this question, but it's hard to argue with one surgeon performing SRS who has stated it doesn't matter what the patient looks like, whether or not they pass, if the surgery is appropriate for them, then they'll do it. It still means the medical (WPATH) protocol has to be followed but to what extent to stay within it? If some post-op transwomen don't even begin to pass, what's wrong with a man having a vagina if they understand and accept the consequences?

--Susan--

[no_id]

You know, this morning, before I went to work this thread was about Body Modification, specifically that of the genitals...
Now I come home (several hours later), and can't figure out whether the thread is about SRS, NHS or foul treatment of gender dysphoria.... *scratches head*

Whoever wanted to see whether or not a gascan would lit on if thrown on a bonfire certainly got their answer. Too bad the actual purpose of this thread burnt along. Pity.

However, the funny thing is... One of the main reasons I'm open minded towards body modification is because I have spent the last few months talking with individuals who alter their biological chemical system and have their groin reconstructed. Now I find that several of those individuals in question don't seem very openminded about body modification...

Let's call that... irony. 

[RedJack]

Chuckles, "I've found the discussion fascinating and informative, ifn its not the discussion I was looking for. I did realize this would be a divisive issue, but information on this kind of topic isn't all that available, certainly not when you're desires don't fit into the nice neat boxes society likes to use for everything. I agree, allowing this kind of modification is dangerous and opens a can of worms, but while it can have its negatives, it could wind up being very positive. Like tattoos or body piercings which one can't say are truly accepted by society, the desensitization of these modifications has made them easier and safer to get, and maybe cheaper (I'm not old enough to answer that one). The same thing could happen with surgeries like this, greater availability, greater safety from experience, and possibly a reduction in price from the availability of competition."

"But, getting back to the original topic, with a modification like this, the largest question is what to do about the testes, and what if any are the dangers of retaining them internally. I would assume that to a degree recovery is likely easier, since there'd be slightly less modifications, particularly in the area of hormones. I'm sure any other dangers or complications in this kind of surgery are well covered on the board as far as the normal choices go."

[Alison]

Chuckles, "I've found the discussion fascinating and informative, ifn its not the discussion I was looking for. I did realize this would be a divisive issue, but information on this kind of topic isn't all that available, certainly not when you're desires don't fit into the nice neat boxes society likes to use for everything. I agree, allowing this kind of modification is dangerous and opens a can of worms, but while it can have its negatives, it could wind up being very positive. Like tattoos or body piercings which one can't say are truly accepted by society, the desensitization of these modifications has made them easier and safer to get, and maybe cheaper (I'm not old enough to answer that one). The same thing could happen with surgeries like this, greater availability, greater safety from experience, and possibly a reduction in price from the availability of competition."

"But, getting back to the original topic, with a modification like this, the largest question is what to do about the testes, and what if any are the dangers of retaining them internally. I would assume that to a degree recovery is likely easier, since there'd be slightly less modifications, particularly in the area of hormones. I'm sure any other dangers or complications in this kind of surgery are well covered on the board as far as the normal choices go."

I agree more acceptance breeds more demand --> more training --> more doctors --> a safer more cost effective surgery.

Re: your question about retaining the testes internally.  It is an interesting question, but sadly one most people here are unable to accurately answer.  As I am not a medical professional; I can only theorize.  I would assume retaining the testes is probably the safer way to do it as you wouldn't have to take HRT for the remainder of your life, but then there is the question of <i> where? </i>