I'm not obsessing about it. But I do wonder, comparatively speaking -- which is what being socialized is all about, other people. It's not so much diligence as curiosity. How does it work.
So I looked a bit into the actual details of the neovaginoplastic surgery. And I have been correct. There may be other techniques, but what seems most common is that the penis be inverted. The corpus cavernosum, the erectile tubes are removed, and all that remains is penis skin, like an empty glove, or a deflated animal balloon (Biden 2024!) like the weener dog a birthday-party clown might make.This skin sac is pushed in, between the urethra and the rectum, and sutured in place so it doesn't prolapse — pulled back outside the body, inside-out like a sock. Of course it's not really inside-out. It was outside-out as a normal penis, then it was outside-in as a neovagina, and if prolapsed it would be outside-out again. It's sort of a möbius-strip thing -- there's only one side.
How successful is this surgery? To my skeptical mind, it sounds like not-very. Prolapse is called "rare". Huh, should be plausible, coming from disinterested medical professionals. But let's look at, say, this study from 10 years ago -- an 8-year followup of 43 "reassignment" cases. (Indeed, that is accurate -- healthy genitals are reassigned to transgenitals.)
Only 37 of these neovagina men identified as "regularly sexually active". These are our persons of interest. The other 6 were not sexually active. Why not? -- information not available to us. Their neovaginas would be symbolic rather than intercourse-functional. Socially speaking, they are functionally asexual, and presumably not at-risk for prolapse, given the vigorous to and fro, the tugging and pushing and friction of penile sexual activity.
Of the 37 sexually active transexuals, no "significant prolapse of the neovagina was noted, 11 patients had a grade I cystocele, rectocele or apical descent that was asymptomatic." [sic] Okay, so three medical problems, but what does all that mean? It means thirty percent had prolapses (eleven out of 37). The significant word is "significant".
In grade 1 cystocele, the traditional-vaginal wall and bladder drops "only a short way" into the vaginal canal. In such cases, intercourse would hit, displace, or a best vigorously palpitate the bladder with each, well, thrust. Grade 2 is when the bladder drops into "the opening of the vagina" -- so, visible -- and grade 3 is when "the bladder bulges out of that opening." Both are debilitating, in terms of physical blockage of sexual access, and of normal bladder function. All this would apply to neovaginas as well.
In rectocele prolapse, "the front wall of the rectum sags and bulges into the vagina, and in severe cases, protrudes out of the vaginal opening." The authors would not have any of this categorized as "significant". Need I say, a rectum intruding into a vagina seems significant to me.
Apical descent is the lowering of the top of the canal -- sagging, slumping or collapsing 2 cm down into itself. In neovaginas this seems to manifest as a shortening or crimping of the opening, more horizontal, less vertical. I'd just have to say, not very vagina-like.
The authors' usage of "asymptomatic" is typically poor academic writing style. Is it all three problems that are asymptomatic, or just the final item. Let's just suppose it's all three. (Sloppy, that we have to suppose.)
When they say the eleven neovaginas are "asymptomatic", they must be excluding the phenomena themselves as symptoms. A rectum or bladder intruding into a neovagina is in itself a symptom, of a prolapse. A looser yet smaller, saggier or baggier neovaginal canal is a symptom. Having pronounced and constant urinary or rectal sensations during intercourse must be a symptom. Likewise, to me, all this seems "significant".
But I have different standards. My purpose is not to trivialize or minimize or normalize this mental disorder, oops, I mean spiritual disorder. A female spirit misincarnated into a male body. God or karma messed up. Yet, it is a mental disorder as well, and a real one. But it is forbidden to say so.
Because terms have definitions, it is NOT body integrity dysphoria (more properly body integrity identity disorder), suffered by able-bodied people who desire an actual disability, whether physical or sensory -- eg, an amputated arm, or blindness.
By definition, BID specifically excludes genital issues. Such issues would be diagnosed as gender dysphoria ... formerly gender identity disorder, but that's hateful and racist, calling it a disorder.
The foolishness and brazenness of the double standard is foolish and brazen. Indefensible, the way all hypocrisy is. My thing is good, but even though your thing is just like mine, it's bad. If a man can identify as a woman ... no, sorry: if a male can identify as a female ... but that's not it either. If a male can identify as a woman, then why can't an able-bodied person identify as transabled (yes, that is a real word -- as real as transgender).
Why? Well, they can and they do. But it's a disorder, sick. It's sick, the way we're not allowed to understand transgenderism is sick, because transablism is not sexual. Sex is why young men get a job and buy a car and play guitar. Not every individual is wired that way, but that's the reason there's a Gen Z to be messed up by a Gen X. There are generations because genitals generate. Gender has nothing to do with it. post
There are fetishists who obsessively masturbate to amputation porn, or pay beaucoup dollars to git wit someone with, please pardon me, a stump -- acrotomophilia. The way you and I feel about that is, first, irrelevant, and second, it's how we used to feel about gay marriage and sodomy. We disapproved. The Supreme Court has educated us out of our tradition-bound ignorance, but so far we're still allowed to be acrotomophiliophobic. Maybe it's acrotomophiliopugnic. In any case, it's still a right.
So, acrotomophilia is about sex, but transablism is not about sex. So transablism is a disorder. By this reasoning, acrotomophilia should only be a dysphoria. It's who they are. I agree, it's confusing.
Maybe medical technicians do some electrolysis on the inverted penis we've been talking about. That wouldn't be a surgeon's job. Electrolysis, because post-puberty penises have been known to have hair some distance along the length. I am certain that no woman would want hair growing inside her vagina. No transexual either, in his neovagina. Really ingrown hairs -- that would be a fourth medical problem. Probably only grade 1 though. Wouldn't be grade 3 until a gigantic matted hair plug was pushing out 4 or 5 centimeters past the neolabia.
There is a point to all of this. The life-long medical and pharmaceutical dependency that transsexuals have to endure seems debilitating to me. The soul-crushing defensiveness, constantly to be battling biological reality and simple common sense -- the effort must be herculean. It is not brave in a moral sense, but it's brave in a social sense, facing down scorn and repugnance or even simple disapproval or incomprehension -- not to say physical violence.
Some heroes do this, stepping up no matter the cost, and they are right. But not everyone with emotional pain is a hero. Self-loathing is not admirable. Whatever fortitude it takes to be castrated and reconfigured, this is not the sort of self-sacrifice that is ennobling. It is as self-asserting an act as can be imagined, and the opposite of generosity.
Me first. God got it wrong.
J
No comments:
Post a Comment