Ok, a few thoughts on expanding/extending my Transformations essay. Just noodling around, but I will be describing things that are "mature" (including genitals), so beware.
Some folks have mentioned other Intersex conditions than the couple I had in the current draft. Those, especially chimeras are a *huge* and way too varied subject (translation, it'd take a lot of finicky research that I''m not particularly inclined to do because I never plan on going that route in my writings)
A few clarifications of intent may be necessary. The basic idea is to first show how real world biology seems to work, with the thrust that whatever we use to go beyond that, it's almost certainly easier to work *with* nature than against it. That should true even for magic, much less "weird" biology or stuff like nanites/tailored viruses.
Also, I realized that a topic often overlooked is just what effect *suddenly* acquired new bits may have, as well as the problems of some of the more "generous" bits some writers are fond of.
As just one example, acquiring large breasts suddenly is going to result in backaches for some time. Just ask anybody who starts wearing even moderate sized breast forms after not wearing them. Or even just resuming wearing them after an extended time without.
If you wear them for more than short periods, your back *will* be unhappy. The right bra can help, but only so much.
The same is going to apply if you manage to *grow* them rapidly. At least with the slow, natural growth rates, the weight increase happens gradually so you can get used to it more easily.
So the guy suddenly "gifted" with breasts is going to find them a *literal* pain. :-)
And, of course there are the problems with finding clothes that fit.
The male genitals have their own problems with size.
One that many writers miss is that the difference between "limp" and "erect" comes *solely* from blood volume trapped in the erectile tissues. That means that the bigger he is, the smaller the difference between limp and erect can be *unless* you want to make him non functional.
A pint (less than 29 cubic inches) is enough blood "loss" to make most people feel faint (that's why they have you lying down for blood donations. So if the size difference is greater than that, the guy won't be able to "use" that huge hunk of meat. He may even pass out before it gets hard enough to use.
A friend who pointed out that I should cover this detail also noted that in some types of stories this could be a plus. Especially the "be careful what you wish for" type.
Another detail oft missed is that penis size and testicle size aren't at all related (or if there is one, it's not a very strong one). So a guy with a huge tool could have a pair of "marbles".
Conversely, a guy could have a *huge* pair, and a tiny tool.
Large & small both have problems. Mismatches have yet another problem (I happen to know someone with the "disappears when limp" penis combined with *huge* testicles, and you'd be amazed at the problems)
So...
Small testicles aren't apt to be much of a problem other than for comments being made. Small penises are a problem in that they can make it hard to use them for much of anything (including peeing while standing!)
Large penises can be intimidating. Especially long ones since there just may not be the *depth* for a partner to take them comfortably. And they make it hard to fit clothing (remember, they are apt to be large even when limp!)
A pitfall not known to those without them is what happens when a guy who is half asleep sits on the toilet and winds up with his tool in the cold water (and lets not consider how clean that water isn't).
Large testicles have that problem in spades. Especially in hot weather. They also have a problem with both boxers and briefs. The loose skin on the scrotum tends to work thru the fly and get pinched.
Oh yes, the small penis, large balls combo? makes using the bathroom a nightmare. Hard to aim if standing, and if sitting, you are aimed right at the gap between the seat and bowl. And trying to aim "past" the balls at the bowl while sitting may not be possible.
Large balls and loose clothing get interesting as well. The guy can rack himself up good sitting on a hard chair incautiously.
Anybody have other pitfalls of acquiring "equipment" you aren't familiar with?
Comments
Sexual SNAFUS
I had to smile while reading your essay.
There are just lots of stories out there where the guy drives his 12" schlong into a woman and in through the cervix. I don't actually believe that is possible and if one did it, there would be serious injury to the woman, not that it is even possible.
Then I have seen stories where they talk of a man having brutal anal intercourse with a partner, and from the ER talk I have heard, that sort of conduct very often has a surgical solution.
I did see on picture where the woman's entire vagina and who knows what else, prolapsed out of the body. I wonder if she even lived.
Another hard one is nipple rings. I've heard of lots of people get them, but I don't know of anyone who kept them. Mine fell out on their own and it was quite painful. I still want some but they just do not seem practical.
Gwendolyn
I've heard (second hand) that
I've heard (second hand) that *some* women enjoy that sort of thing. But yeah, it's very much not recommended to penetrate the cervix. Infection hazard among other things.
As for anal, yeah. I've seen videos (one just the other day) of guys using insanely huge dildos on themselves and watching the way their abdomen bulges is scary. As someone teaching a class on fisting pointed out, the intestines are essentially wet parchment as far as strength goes.
The rectum is somewhat stronger, at least in part because of anal sex being used as a dominance thing in many mammals for a *long* time. So being able to survive it is a survival thing.
But even with *care* you can cause a lot of bleeding and stuff.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
A quite simple one actually
A quite simple one actually.... Suddenly acquiring LONG fingernails... You have to learn how to do EVERYTHING all over! The longer, the more re-learning!
Also, long nails can damage
Also, long nails can damage things. I have a keyboard where since I tend to be a one handed typist (not for *that* reason) the nail on my index finger wore a *hole* thru the enter key!
Doh! Long hair.
I used to have a pony tail that went to my waist. And one day I sat in a vinyl covered recliner. No problem. Until I tried to get up. That required leaning forward. Only I *couldn't* because the ponytail was trapped behind my *lower* back.
I had to reach back with both hands and grab hold of the "free" part of the ponytail (between my scalp an my back). And sort of do a hand over hand pull to extract it from under me. Moderately painful, and took a minute or two.
*Not* something you expect. And way too amusing for friends.
You learn to make sure you *aren't* going to be sitting on your hair.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
MtF
How many stories where the man's equipment is surgically altered with cloned female parts, and then gets pregnant.
Sorry, the new dudette is in deep kimshi.
Women have little interlocking piece on their vertebra that a man doesn't. When the baby bump gets big those pieces do their thing, and while the woman is very uncomfortable she will get through it. A man's backbone will proceed to start popping disks on by one, and our intrepid heroine is now a paraplegic. So much for having kids.
Moral of the story, a man can not get pregnant, he does not have the back bone for it.
Damn, there went my plans.
Um... is there a drawback to
Um... is there a drawback to those interlocking pieces in the female spine, or why don't men have them too? Is that something genetic or something that grows during puberty? Could you change that problem with an operation, or would you need to clone a whole new body?
Interesting information...
do you have a citation for
do you have a citation for that?
I ask because the same thing should happen to guys with a serious pot belly. And it doesn't.
But other things that "normally" only happen to pregnant women *do*. Like the weight pressing on nerves causing numbness in the upper legs and even causing the legs to not work right (thing like a "dragging" foot because the nerves to the ankle got wonky for a minute).
I've also never heard of the spine being listed as a way to tell a female skeleton from a male one.
So, not saying you are wrong, I'd just like an authoritative source.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
I have googled it
quite a few times. It is pretty common knowledge, I have had to look it up occasionally for times like now. It is one of those gender differences, like the smaller forehead or wider hips. I know nothing about paleontology (did I get that right?), it was just one of those facts I picked up.
Other articles have described it better, but this is the first one that came to hand.
http://www.physorg.com/news173710357.html
I just noticed that was the ignoble prize, so here is another citation.
http://www.physorg.com/news116687330.html
Quite an interesting article,
Quite an interesting article, but it doesn't really explain why men don't have it. This sounded more like "men would have problems walking stable" with a baby near term then "men's spine would snap". If I interprete this correctly, you could have a baby if you had a womb, but you'd probably be confined to bed in the last 2 months or so - something to consider if I ever feel like writing a male-pregnancy fic ;)
Having the 'backbone' for pregnancy...
I am not sure if I should bother commenting, since this thread is a couple days old now and I suspect most people won't see this... but...
I read the cited articles... and while I definitely would have preferred to read the original research paper, rather than a "popular science" interpretation of it... it was interesting, but I did not come to the same conclusions you seem to have, OddPOV.
Sorry...
I am tempted to immediately start babbling away in obtuse medical jargon, to "prove" my statements above... but then, I think that just might be the source of the confusion already present in this thread: the use of too much jargon in source articles. So... I think I will split my reply into two parts -- a brief "summary", and only then a longer section giving my reasons...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Smile. Okay... long story short: I'm sorry, but it seems obvious to me that the article you cited does not say what you think it does. As someone in the medical field, when I read that source... all they are saying is that they noticed that the "ridges", on the back bones of the women they studied, are a bit longer than the same ridges on guys -- and they *think* that might have been an slight evolutionary advantage for the *women* who had it, versus other women who *don't* have it.
But there really isn't anything in there that positively claims that the *lack* of that difference would be in any way harmful to a guy carrying a child to term. The difference is too subtle, in my opinion, for it really to make much of an impact at all. A slight benefit from having it... but the lack of it is in no way a "deal breaker".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now for the long version...
Yes, they are saying that they have noticed a sexually dimorphic variation in the lumbar (lower back) vertebrae... but no, they are *not* saying that "[women] have little interlocking piece that a man doesn't". Sigh. All they are saying is that the little "fin like protrusions", referred to as "spines" in the cited article, [actually, they are called vertebral "processes"] are a slightly different shape on females. No extra pieces... no missing pieces... just they grow a little longer on a female than they do on a male.
Shrug. No surprise, really. Although the cited source claims this is "one of a kind" research... and *maybe* that is even true -- in the field of anthropology... it is not new in the *medical* field. There have been other studies about growth patterns for male and female children, studying in detail how the spinal bones develop during puberty. [As well as the exact angles of "lordosis" (curvature) -- it is important information to doctors for the routine procedure of fusing vertebrae together after a back injury, as you really do not want to fuse things together at the wrong angles and cripple the person you are trying to help...]
Those other studies have shown that in the presence of elevated androgen levels (typically found in males), the bone grows both "longer" and "thicker" (more transversely) than it does in females... while in females the growth patterns place more emphasize on "length-wise" growth, than thickness. Shrug. Also no surprise... pretty much everyone knows that male bones are bigger and heavier than females -- these studies just confirm the exact mechanism by which that happens.
The vertebral process elongation mentioned in your cited source is, I suspect, merely an extension of that. In the absence of androgens, usually around age 8.5 years for healthy "western" Caucasians, females start a "pubescent growth spurt" that lasts about three to four years... and during that time, the vertebrae grow mostly in the "length" direction. Males, on the other hand, typically start their growth spurt years later around 12.5 years of age, and grow both "length-wise" and "transversely". The net result is that on a female, the spinal bones end up "thinner"... and another way of saying the same thing would be to say that girls' bones grow longer, while boys grow thicker.
Shrug. Proportionally speaking, that is. In absolute terms, because boys start their growth spurt later, after many years more of "normal speed" growth... the final result is usually that boys are bigger than girls -- as I am sure everyone is already aware. So in absolute measurements, a boy's vertebrae may be every bit as "long" as a girls -- and in fact may be longer. I am just saying that the proportions are different -- if you picked a boy and a girl who happened to be the exact same height, then looked at how "thick" their bones appeared... the boy's would appear proportionally thicker, while the girl's would appear thinner.
Anyway, when they talk about lordosis in that article, they just mean the angle of curvature at which all the pieces go together... and a well known consequence of the "thinner" female spine is that it has less biomechanical support (simply because it is narrower, not due to any other difference). Sort of like, if you stack bricks on top of each other, it is usually quite stable -- if you stack them horizontally, where the bricks are "thick" compared to their height. But if you try stacking them "end to end"... by the time you stack a dozen or two of them, it gets really tricky to stack them... and it takes little effort to knock them over. Its all a matter of leverage... and while female spines are not *that* much different than males, the bones are "enough" narrower that women tend (on average) to have more of a "S" bend ("lordosis") to their spine -- and are slightly more prone to back problems.
Which really makes me wonder if the increased lumbar process length noted by this study *really* would have any effect *at all*, on the ability of a male to carry a child to term. Shrug. Does it really add an advantage? Or does it just compensate (a little) for the *instability* that the female thinner bones are known to have? There is no data in your cited source to say, one way or the other...
And by the way... the gender differences in lordosis are really quite small. Keep in mind that of the 33 human vertebrae, 9 are fused (in adults) into the sacrum and coccyx ("tail bone"), and another seven are cervical (in the neck)... but that still leaves 17 joints in the back. [Twelve in the thoracic region... the chest area... and five in the "lower" lumbar region]. Which is to say... because there are so many joints, it only takes a couple degrees of difference in lordosis at each joint, to make things *look* different externally. Shrug. According to a study I was reading the other day, typically the gender difference is that the female spine is more inclined dorsally ("towards the back") than males -- but only by 11 degrees versus 8 degrees. That is only three degrees of difference -- half of the arc an "hour hand" moves in one minute, if you were looking at a clock. We are not talking huge, obvious differences here...
[If anyone wants a citation for my some of my statements above... there are many, but one is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1164068/pdf/jana... ].
The other thing they mentioned in the "Why Pregnant Women Don't Tip Over" article, was the business about the curvature extending across three vertebrae in females... rather than just two in males. Shrug. I repeat... female vertebrae are narrower, and less stable than, male vertebrae. I am not convinced from that study that this is necessarily a gender dimorphism, so much as a simple biomechanical reality of a less stable joint bending a little more. If they had extended their study to look at those males who have similar "thin" bones, and *still* found there was still a difference, (which they did *not*), I might buy it. But as it is... they need to do more research, before making unjustified statements like that. Sloppy science... and probably part of why they got an "ignoble" prize for their research...
Actually, while thinking about your cited article, OddPOV, I could not help but notice that they also don't seem to have addressed one issue at all. Unless the information is in the original source (and the "popular science" article just didn't bother to go into it), the original study authors don't seem to have taken into account that there are four common female pelvic shapes -- and the lordosis angles are different for each of them. Shrug. No surprise, I suppose -- the authors of the study are anthropologists, not OB/GYN doctors. I distinctly recall how they were careful to qualify some of their statements ("presumably a female" and "presumably a male"... which appears in some of their anthropologic hypothesis supporting evidence towards the end of their article). Necessary weasel wording... as they simply have *no* way to absolutely know the gender of those old fossils. Yes, there *are* some bone shapes that are "more common" among males than females... and the reverse is true also... but there is a world of difference between "more common" and "always".
[In case you are wondering what I am talking about with my statement about pelvic shapes... the four different "common" types of hip structures (see illustration below) routinely encountered in females are "gynecoid", "android", "anthropoid", and "platypelloid". "Gynecoid", found in about 50% of Caucasian women, is the "classic female" shape most people think of when they think of a woman's hips... but you will notice that it is actually only present in about half the population. ("Platypelloid" is also fairly distinctly female... but is much less common among Caucasians -- it is more common among other races). While "android", found in roughly 20% of women, is a distinctly "male" looking pelvic bone... and is surprisingly common.]
The different shapes of pelvic bones tend to connect differently, too, by the way. The gynecoid is usually slightly tilted, while the android is more vertically aligned -- which changes the lordosis angles, and impacts just how necessary any extra length to the vertebral processes would be, regarding providing more leverage for the spinal muscles to stabilize the spine...].
Shrug. Before making any theories about the impact of "male" lordosis on the ability to carry a pregnancy to term... you might want to consider that about one in five Caucasian women have a very "male" sort of bone structure... and yet somehow manage to bear children...
[Also In case anyone is wondering... I merely keep using the "Caucasian" qualifier as the percentages differ a small amount, depending on the characteristic racial genetics. The same statements could be made for any other ethnic group -- I would just have to use slightly different numbers...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, OddPOV. I do thank you for pointing out that research -- I enjoyed reading it, and enjoyed thinking about this -- but I can not agree with your conclusions...
I thought something was off...
With the statements made by the article OddPOV linked to, and her own statements in regards to... But I didn't have the medical background to support my disagreement, so I chose not to get into it.
Thank you for this, I found it quite interesting and informative, myself. BTW, since approximately 20% of Caucasian women have a "male" pelvic structure, is there any correlating number of men with a "female" one?
Abigail Drew.
I claim no expertise
But I have read other article on the subject that claimed there were unlocking action going on. I threw those up because I had been called on it, and spent less than 5 minutes searching.
Truth, it doesn't matter to me, unless the end of the world comes and I need a sex change. Given the other enormous differences between anatomies and skeletal structure I had no problem accepting it.
When reading these articles it is important to remember some of the writers writing them know less than we do. :D
Has been read :) No wonder
Has been read :) No wonder they got an ignoble price for their research.
I'm so glad the new version of this site allows to favourite block posts. This is so much awesome research materal, I don't want to lose it.
thanks for the information,
Beyogi
Hmm...
If black men have huge cocks, would a black transwoman end up with a huge, cavernous vagina? = )
If it's via SRS, maybe. If
If it's via SRS, maybe.
If it's by biological wizardry, then probably not as the tissues aren't homologous.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
Um general question: Does
Um general question: Does anyone here know a good description of a sex reassignment surgery? It would be good if they'd also describe the medical stuff and what they need to be careful with not to damage and such.
thanks,
Beyogi
A local woman I know has gone
A local woman I know has gone to Thailand with a lot of the local T-girls when they got their surgery.
She got permission from a couple of them (and from the surgeons) to take photos of the surgery. she put together a slide show and narration and showed it several times. I've seen it and remember most of the details.
That'll apply to MtF surgery, though you have to keep in mind that thee are things different surgeons do differently.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
I'm wondering because I'm
I'm wondering because I'm writing a story in the universe of Viva-la-Revolution. I plan to have the protagonist have an operation and store his balls under/behind his vagina. He's going to be a Tomgirl, and keep his normal male hormones with the sexual organs of a female.
I didn't plan to do an excessive description, but I wanted to know if it is possible. I figured the description of a Real Life SRS could help so I wouldn't screw up here.
Well, real life MtF SRS
Well, real life MtF SRS *starts* with a double orchiectomy. Often performed months before the rest. Though not always, because scrotum tends to shrink even faster after that, and they need the skin for constructing the labia and vaginal lining.
Also, if you tuck the testicles up inside, they will still produce hormones, but the higher temp will stop sperm production. That's *why* they hang outside and hang lower when it's hot. Temperature regulation. A lower temp is needed for sperm production.
If they are just pushed back inside the inguinal canals they descended thru (done by many folks), there *is* a risk of the cords getting pinched and cutting off the blood supply. If done surgically, that *probably* isn't a risk. Just keep in mind that those channels are where hernias happen, so weakening an already weak spot is not good.
Getting back to SRS.
Some surgeons have you get permanent hair removal on the penis and scrotum. Others "scrape" off the layer of skin that has the hair follicles as part of the surgery. One or the other is necessary so you won't have hair growing inside your vagina.
Anyway, the testicles are removed if still present. The penis is skinned and the scrotum removed. Both pieces of skin are set aside to be pieced back together for the labia and vaginal lining.
Meanwhile, the corpus cavernosa (erectile tissues in the shaft) are removed and the urethra detached from the glans. This leaves the gland still attached to the body by a bundle of nerves and blood vessels that normal runs along the "top" (side opposite the urethra) of the penile shaft.
They leave the nerves and blood vessels attached because they aren't up to disconnecting and reconnecting them. Or maybe because doing a reconnect would require *hours* of microsurgery.
The glans is trimmed down to a smaller size to become the clitoris and a hole is made to place it. The bundle of nerves and blood vessels is tucked into the hole and the trimmed glans tucked in on top. Skin is arranged to form a hood.
Meanwhile, they excavate the channel for the vaginal and construct the lining and labia out of that skin from the penis and scrotum. They also shorten the urethra and stitch the end in place.
If there's not enough skin for the desired depth, they have to get it from elsewhere. Not sure where. Suspect it varies with surgeon.
Also, *some* surgeons will take a section of intestine and use that as part of the vaginal lining. This is a plus in that since it will keep secreting the mucous it normally does, you'll likely not need to supply lubricant when dilating or having sex. It's a minus in that you will *always* be lubricating, thus needing tampons or pads all the time.
Once they've created the vagina, they pack it full of gauze. I think they sometimes have a sort of "framework" in there as well to help maintain the shape.
Some time later, you wake up in recovery with a *very* sore crotch and a catheter in you.
You spend a few days in bed with the dressings getting changed and the like. Finally, they remove the packing for good and you have a look at your badly bruised and swollen genitals.
Then you get introduced to dilating. Starting with slim, smooth dilators and working up to larger/longer ones. Eventually you get to the desired size & depth (or find you can't which requires a consult with the surgeon again).
Once you've reached your goal, you'll have to keep dilating on a less frequent schedule, but you *will* have to keep doing it.
As far as your body is concerned, there's a hole there that doesn't belong. And it "needs" to heal shut. Thus the need to "remind" it that you want it open. And yes, you *will* loose depth and diameter if you don't dilate for too long. :-(
Hopefully I got the above mostly right. I'm sure folks who've been thru it will correct me.
ps. With the slide show it was rather bloody and upset a few folks. Several of the guys couldn't watch.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
First: Thank you very much
First: Thank you very much for the description.
Um, so when you permanently tuck the testicles up that won't destroy their capability to produce sperm but stop them from producing sperm. So it would be ok for a guy who temporarily wants to have female sexual organs? But didn't want the female hormones.
About the healing shut of the neovagina. Why does that happen? I want to get my superscience right so I have to ask.
Btw. the thing about back pains after a breast expansion gave me some ideas, thanks for that too.
Beyogi
PS: Now I kind of want to see it ;)
Yeah, to the best of my
Yeah, to the best of my knowledge the higher temp *just* majorly reduces fertility. And is temporary.
The neo-vagina tries to heal shut for the same reason piercings do. It's a hole that your genes say isn't supposed to be there.
Hmmm. Now *there* is a nasty bit of superscience:
Good news: they've developed regeneration so any injury can be healed.
Bad news: it regens back to your genetic blueprint.
Be annoying for Jews & Muslims. Be *terrifying* for post-op TSes. As well as for folks with some birth defects.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
Well CAS women also have a
Well CAS women also have a male genetic blueprint. None the less they grow an vagina (and I think an uterus). So it shouldn't be the genetics, but something else. I mean if someone cuts off my finger it doesn't grow back to the genetic blueprint, but just heals over. I think the split flesh thinks it should be connected to "the other side" and tries to reconnect; aka healing over.
If one could just make it think it was right the way it is, one might solve the healing over problem with SRS. What do you think, could that work?
Seriously, we don't really have a genetic blueprint. We have a genetic step by step building instruction. Much stuff is regulated by hormones and if they're missing or altered another building instruction/step is triggered.
I don't know how this regeneration stuff works - there has been some progress - but I think it just rebuilds the limb or injury from zero. Makes me wonder: What would happen if you just cut open the crotch of a transgendered person on estrogen and then induced the regeneration. Would it grow a female crotch, with vagina, skene glands and clitoris, or would the penis and balls regrow?
I was wondering, because my biology teacher once told me too tight jeans resulted in higher infertility in males. I figured he was telling fairy tales then, but I wasn't sure ;)
Well, I don't know about the muslims, but those women who could grow back their clit's probably wouldn't complain ^^
I've heard circumcision actually reduces the feelings for guys. Anyway, I don't like that they can do something like that to kids.
CAIS causes developmental
CAIS causes developmental changes *in the womb*. That's why a girl like that has a vagina. That gets "locked in" as "normal". With all the right supporting structures and stuff.
Vaginoplasty doesn't have those advantages. It's basically "dig a hole, line it with semi-appropriate tissue".
There are (not sure of the right term) "markers" that get set up in tissues during development that set where tissue types change into other types. If we could figure that out, we might be able to do "real" vaginas.
A useful contrast is comparing images of a clitoris on an FtM who has take lots of T and gotten a good result with one from someone born with a hypertrophied clitoris (and not been surgically "corrected"). The former looks noticeably "off" when compared to a penis. The latter looks a uncannily like a penis.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
Regarding SRS techniques...
While I mostly agree with Brooke's description of an SRS... there are a few minor details I would quibble about. For the most part, her article is well written though... so rather than writing another description from scratch, I think I will instead write a "critique" of her work -- please think of this as more intended as a supplement to her article, rather than any real attempt to contradict her...
Brooke's "lower temp is needed for sperm production" statement is quite accurate... and all I will add to it is that sperm production is part of a complex biochemical process that also produces hormones. [Both the testosterone most people think of when they think of "male sex organs"... and also smaller amounts of estrogen, which is actually needed for part of the sperm cell formation cycle.] Disrupting the sperm production (by putting the testes up inside the body, surgically or otherwise), would not just lower the sperm count -- it also would lower the hormone production. Not completely stop it... but lower it. In males were, through various birth defects, the testes do not descend as normal, there is usually an associated low androgen level as well. [I say "androgen" instead of "testosterone"... as testosterone is merely the "best known" of the androgens in a male. Just as there are actually three different estrogens in humans... estrone (E1), estradiol (E2), and estriol (E3). E2 is the most chemically active, by the way... which is why estradiol (or more formally 17-beta-estradiol, also called oestradiol in the UK) is the most common "human bioequivalent" HRT component, these days. The numbers in the E1, E2, and E3 thing just indicate how many hydroxyl groups are in the chemical structure... which also by the way is almost identical to testosterone -- there has just been a few carbon groups knocked off the end of the molecule, in making estrogen from testosterone. Which is why excess testosterone is easily converted by the human body to estrogen, but estrogen can not be converted back into testosterone -- it is a lot easier for enzymes to remove some carbon groups from a cholesterol molecule (via some intermediate steps) to make testosterone, than it is to try to reattach more carbon groups onto the structure... but I digress...]
The "double orchiectomy" "[often] performed months before the rest"... is a true enough statement, but the second part of it is more true in Thailand than elsewhere. It is sort of "old school", procedure wise... and these days more and more SRS surgeons are refusing to operate on (or at least charging more for) patients who have the double orchiectomy done ahead of time. As Brooke noted, doing the two procedures separately carries the risk of the scrotum shrinking -- and there is also another problem, which she did not mention. Namely, in all too many cases the surgeon doing the double orchiectomy (unless they are also a SRS surgeon) is not careful enough about preserving all of the scrotal tissue (they have no need to, for a "normal" double orchiectomy)... and they also often leave a scar in the scrotal tissue that has to be cut out before the vaginoplasty -- further reducing a limited supply of very valuable, "primary donor material".
These days, the most common recommendation for transitioners is to *not* have a double orchiectomy ahead of time, but rather to rely on androgen blocker medications...
Regarding Brooke's statement about "'[scraping]' off the layer of skin that had the hair follicles as part of the surgery"... that is only sort of true. Some do that... some use electrocautery on all the pores... some "punch out" little holes around each of the pores... there are various surgical ways to deal with the problem. She is more or less right, though...
Regarding the removal of the scrotal skin... that also varies a little, depending on the surgical technique used. Depending on how much "donor material" is available, it is quite common to detach only part of the scrotal skin, while retaining part of it "in place" to form the outer sides of the labia majora -- which is a natural "hair bearing" skin surface on females, so there is no need to detach it or remove the follicles from it, in that particular part of the reconstruction. She is right about what is done with the part that is detached, though...
Regarding the "corpus cavernosa (erectile tissues in the shaft)"... she is again only partially right. *Most* of the corpus cavernosa is currently removed -- the part that is inside the penis shaft. The corpus cavernosa, however, extends into the body a ways (necessary to provide the required "base" for the remainder to do its job correctly)... and often that internal part is left alone, as there would be too much risk of damaging other tissues in removing it. This is why, by the way, some post op TS still feel a slight sensation of "having an erection" when aroused. They actually *are* having an erection -- there is just nothing visible, as only the internal parts of the corpus cavernosa are still present...
[That is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way. Actually, the corpus cavernosa is discarded more for the psychological benefit of the patients, than the medical necessity. (Many TS really hate that "erection" sensation...). In female anatomy, the corpus cavernosa is also present -- the homologous tissue is just arranged a little differently, with very little "external" (in the clitoris), and the internal part enlarged (extending back parallel to the labia, inside the labia majora... where it functions to "spread" the labia, exposing the vaginal entrance, when a female is aroused. Shrug. Sometimes I wish they did not routinely discard that part... I ended up having a purely cosmetic SRS revision, years later, in which I asked a surgeon to transplant some of my body fat into my labia majora, to give them a much more realistic look and feel. Something that would have been completely unnecessary, had the original surgeon just repositioned the corpus cavernosa into its normal female location -- discarding merely the "excess" material, rather than "most of" the available tissue. Smile. Having said the above, though... I suppose I should add that the "normal" result is not really all that bad. I was having body fat harvested and transplanted anyway (as part of BFS, "Body Feminizing Surgery"), and just asked the BFS surgeon (who I knew also did gynaecological "cosmetic" surgery on natal females) if he could also improve on my labia appearance while he was operating on me anyway. Which he did, quite well, by the way].
When Brooke mentioned shortening and repositioning the urethra... she neglected to say what they do with the part of the urethra that is removed. To elaborate on that, it varies a bit from surgeon to surgeon, but the most common technique is to "salvage" that useful material. It is a completely hair-free, mucosal tissue (where the mucosal part means that it tends to produce a "natural lubricant" -- making it extremely valuable for normal post op sexual function)... so it generally gets reused somewhere, although again, exactly where varies with the surgeon. Most commonly (I think), it is used on the labia minora -- the "inner lips" -- either for the whole surface, or just part of it (depending on the surgeon...).
Brooke said she was not sure where they take extra skin from... and she is right that it varies with the surgeon. The most common areas, though, are by "stretching" the skin of the inner thigh upwards a bit and salvaging some from there (often done by Dr Suporn), or taking it from anywhere on the body that has an excess. [Sometimes the "belly"... sometimes the buttocks... rarely elsewhere... it depends more on the patient's unique body than the surgeon involved...].
Brooke noted that the glans (the "head" of the penis) is "trimmed down to a smaller size to become the clitoris"... but did not specify what happens to the "excess" glans material. With most surgeons, it is simply discarded... but some (Dr Suporn) keep it intact, flattening it out to become his "Chonburi Flap" -- a region of high sensitivity (since it is made from the intact nerve endings of most of the glans) around the clitoris, which he uses to increase the "sexual sensitivity" of his patients. [Or so I have read from his published medical papers... I have never actually met that surgeon, since he lives on the opposite end of the planet from me...]. While on the topic of sensation... it is perhaps interesting to note that most natal females have few nerve endings within their vagina's (an evolutionary trait, since otherwise the childbirth process would be even more painful than it already is). With "penile inversion" vaginoplasty, the clitoris ends up "less sensitive" -- since it is only made from part of the glans (whereas in natal females *all* of the nerve endings of what would have formed the entire glans "had things been different", end up in the clitoris). But to partially compensate for this reduced clitoral sensation, the surgeons preserve the nerve endings to much of the tissue they used to line the neo-vagina, resulting in TS having much more sensation "inside" than a natal female.
As a trivial aside... I just used the term "neo-vagina", regarding the same piece of anatomy I more frequently refer to as just a "vagina". "Neo" is Latin for "new"... and is used in a hyphenated word with "vagina" during and shortly after vaginoplastic surgery. After that, the organ in question is no longer "new"... and is just referred to as a "vagina". Shrug. Pedantic, I know. It is just that I sometimes read folks writing about *any* vagina in a TS, no matter how many years post op, as a "neo-vagina"... as if that term were a special label unique to a "manufactured" vagina... which is incorrect, and just bugs me. Smile. "Neo-vagina" can also be used for natal's, folks, if they have any sort of repairs done down there. It is not unique to trans-women... and it is only a temporary label...
Regarding the "I think they sometimes have a sort of 'framework' in there as well to help maintain the shape" comment, which Brooke made in reference to packing the neo-vagina with gauze... that is a new one to me, if true. I *have* heard of using non-lubricated, non-latex condoms *densely* pre-packed with gauze, to provide a bit more "firmness", when required... which perhaps is all that she is talking about... but no actual medical devices being inserted. I am not saying it definitely never happens, though. There are literally hundreds of SRS surgeons on the planet these days (although far fewer than that are famous for doing that procedure), and it is quite possible someone, somewhere, does something like that. It isn't a "mainstream" procedure, though. Shrug. Whatever...
As for Brooke's comments about the necessity of dilating... I mostly agree with her, but I would add a caveat. I had my ears pierced so long ago that I could not even guess when it was anymore... more decades ago than I want to admit, anyway... and my body has adjusted to that. Where once, I vaguely remember, I had to wear earrings fairly regularly -- or the holes would start to close up -- these days I can go for many months, without it being a problem -- possibly longer, although I have never tried. Similarly... when a patient is a "recent" post op, the surgeon gives a quite frequent dilation schedule to the patient -- several times a day, and if you miss, you will regret it when you next try. After a while (a few months, varying with the surgeon), that frequency goes down to once a day (often with several intermediate steps, first). After six months to a year, that can go down to once a week... and I have heard from many "long term" post ops that after many years, they have "gotten away with" skipping for many months at a time.
Actually, I know someone who hated dilation... never intended to use her vagina sexually... and went for close to forty years without dilating. [An intersexed person, surgically assigned female at birth, which was the source of the "unwanted SRS"... who eventually transitioned FtM -- although she was still living female at the time I am writing about, so I will refer to "her" with female pronouns]. Her vagina never completely went away, but it did atrophy down to something so small that I believe (if I am remembering correctly -- this was quite a few years back) she once described it as "too small to slip even a pencil into". So... I won't say I disagree with Brooke about the necessity of dilation... but I will say that it may not "heal shut" if you don't. It will, however, probably close up to "so small" that for most practical purposes, it becomes useless. "Use it or lose it", folks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not something Brooke really touched on... but something I think I will mention due to Extravagance's earlier (unrelated) comments in this thread... is the "limiting factors" on post surgical vaginal size. Smile. And no, Extravagance, a "huge cock" does not mean "a huge, cavernous vagina". LOL. In another comment I am also posting to this thread today, you will find a diagram of the human pelvis -- the female pelvis, but that is not important. Look at the "android" image in that diagram for a moment... as that is essentially the most common pelvic shape in males. [Although the other, "female" shapes *do* occur in some males too -- genetics is a mixed up mess, with just about any rule having exceptions to it. Part of how living organisms evolve... the "copying" process for DNA has evolved to deliberately have "accidental cross-overs" in it, in higher life forms. This produces variations in the genetics of offspring... which sometimes is tragic, but occasionally results in a new trait that turns out to give the "birth defect" offspring an evolutionary advantage... but that is straying from the topic...].
Anyway, assuming for the moment an "android" pelvic shape in the SRS patient, that shape provides some limitations. As you can see in the lower part of that diagram, the shape of the "big hole" through the pelvis -- the size of which being a limiting factor in how big a baby's head can be and survive a "natural" birth -- is slightly different in android pelvic bones than in the gynecoid pelvis... and it is a bit smaller, assuming equal sized pelvic bones. [I added that last part as pelvic bones are *not* all the same size. Like every other bone in the body, it depends on how big the person is... which means that, since females are smaller "on average" than males, the pelvic bone of a typical female is actually smaller than the usual male's pelvis. It may *look* bigger... especially considering how much body fat many females carry over their hips... at least relative to the rest of her body... but in absolute terms, because her whole body is smaller, her hip bone averages smaller, too]. The size of that birth canal opening through the pelvis is one of the limiting factors.
Shrug. Most post op TS... and most natal women... usually do not attempt to stick really big things in their vagina's. But, as anyone who has spent times on one of the binary newsgroups knows (especially the groups that occasionally get flooded with a lot of pornographic spam), "usually" is not always. "Fisting", or inserting of other unusual objects, is a reality... and one which just might show up in someone's stories... so I will *very briefly* touch on that. Shrug. There is a medical term for a woman who has never given birth -- it is called being "nulliparous". That is relevant, as the cartilage joining the symphysis pubis (the middle of the pelvis "arch" above the genitals) is often "stretched" by childbirth... and all TS are obviously "nulliparous", without that stretched symphysis pubis. Add in the smaller dimensions of the opening in android pelvis... and there are limits to just what a TS vagina can do, "girth" wise.
Shrug, again. I have seen pictures of natal females (where it is not specified... but I strongly suspect they are *not* nulliparous), where some really big things get inserted in their vagina's. (Beer cans... bowling pins... I have seen some really strange pictures, on occasion]. Sorry, that is not possible for a "realistic" TS character... although I suppose anything is possible in fiction. Most TS dilate with stents that average about 38 mm (1.5 inches) in diameter... but that is just the size their surgeons typically provide -- it is not a medical limitation. I know some TS who have used "after market accessories" to stretch that up to comfortably dilating with up to 52 mm objects (a little over 2 inches)... but I do not think I have heard of anyone going larger than that. At that size, the vaginal walls are being pressed up against the sides of the opening through the pelvis... which becomes a limitation.
Natal females typically dilate to around 10 cm (4 inches) during the birth process, but their symphysis pubis has to "split" for them to do it. (Which is extremely painful... please do not think that I am saying natal females can handle something that big "normally". They can't... at least, not usually). Again, as mentioned in my other reply, some women *do* have android pelvic bones -- so I have no reason to believe that the presence of one is necessarily a limitation on giving birth, as in theory the same split should happen to a "male" pelvis after months of being exposed to the mix of hormones present during pregnancy. But so long as the character remains nulliparous, there would be a limit on how large a "huge cock" that Extravagance's hypothetical character could handle, girth wise.
As for depth... the limiting factor for most SRS surgeons is not the amount of "donor material", but rather the exact pelvic configuration of the individual patient, as well as something known as the "peritoneal reflection", or sometimes called the "Douglas Pouch". Basically, it is the bottom of the lining of the abdominal cavity... the "sack" that contains all the stomach, intestines, et cetera. That is a fairly strong barrier, and punching a whole through it is usually not surgically recommended. [Some SRS surgeons, notably Dr Suporn, routinely do so... but he was an abdominal surgeon before taking up cosmetic surgery -- and he uses a unique technique, which carries a small element of risk to it... although so far at least, he seems to be successful with it. I am not certain of it, but I think I have also heard of a couple other surgeons (possibly Dr Brassard, although my source was questionable) that have also started extending past that limit in recent years].
For the majority of SRS patients, that peritoneal reflection poses a depth limitation that averages somewhere around 13 to 15 cm (5.5 - 6 inches). Some patients get less than that... some a little more, depending on their unique anatomy. But that is the average post op SRS "depth"... and unlike "girth", which can be increased (to the maximum limited by the pelvis birth canal size) by simple dilation... the amount of depth you can get is usually no more than your surgeon gives you -- no matter how much you try. As it is usually possible (via a combination of "penile inversion", with the addition of skin from the scrotum and occasionally other sources, as needed) to get that much depth... the size of the original "donor material" does not really matter all that much. Unless, of course, you are going to surgically alter the peritoneal reflection... extending it inwards a bit locally, as a couple surgeons do. In that case, the maximum I have ever heard reported (long term) was 22.6 cm depth (8.5 inches). (Some get more than that initially... but that is the most I have heard of "long term", after things are fully healed...).
This is not particularly unique to "formerly male" TS anatomy, by the way. The same limitation exists in a natal female. The depth of the natal vagina also varies (and actually only averages about 8 cm -- a little over 3 inches), depending on the position of the peritoneal reflection in the particular, unique, female in question. The difference is, a natal woman has a cervix located at that depth... and on the other side of it is the uterus -- which is *inside* the abdominal lining. This creates a hollow within the body, immediately adjoining onto the natal vagina... which gives it somewhere to "stretch into", inwards, if necessary. A uterus which medical science can not, yet, duplicate... although if you are writing "magical" fiction, or science fiction from the "not too distant" future, it is not that unreasonable to imagine a procedure in which that extra organ *can* be duplicated. Medical science is not that far from routinely doing so now... and some experimental work has already been done along those lines...
This is a public forum... but this is also a fairly "adult only" topic of discussion... so I will add one other detail. Shrug. I am heterosexually married, to a male who is "longer" than I am "deep". It is not usually a problem. I won't go into details publicly... but essentially, there are sexual techniques by which you can "control" the depth to which someone penetrates -- without discomfort, and without really limiting the "fun" (although it does limit the use of some positions). Mostly, it just involves using your thigh muscles to exert a little pressure on the male's legs, "gripping" him... and limiting how deep you allow him to thrust. This is not unique to TS, by the way. I learned of it from post hysterectomy women... who have the exact same problem, since they no longer have a uterus for their cervix to "stretch into" when dealing with a "too large" male...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sigh. And once again, this is getting way too long. Part of many reasons why I have been trying (with mixed results) to stay out of discussions like this, in recent years. I just know way too much about all this stuff... and when I get started, I tend to ramble on for *hours*. Oh well, hubby went to some tradeshow today, so I had the time to kill, anyway. I just hope I have not bored too many people to death. Just curious... did anyone actually read *all* of the above? Or did you start skimming ahead, partway through? Grin. I know I would have, if I ran into something like this in a thread, written by someone else. But then... obviously, I already know all this trivia...
I read it all
Much of it was new to me, and quite fascinating. I read all of the other comment you made in this thread as well, and this comment had answered my question towards that one...
Please, by means, keep posting! I find your ramblings quite interesting.
Abigail Drew.
I also read it all
You can go on rambling like this, this is totally valuable information :D
I never got the idea that a natal females vagina wouldn't be sensitive, but it makes sense. You wouldn't want to increase the pain of birth. I guess that makse TG stories where the inside of the vagina is totally sensitive after the transformation somewhat ridiculous. Well now I have to decide if I'm letting my character have a sensitive vagina and explain it away as an advantage of being a Tomgirl or let him have a normal one.
The hormonal stuff is also quite interesting. How much would the androgens be reduced with "stored" testicles? And what kinds of effects would that have on the person? I guess it would make him less agressive and ambitious...
Thanks for all that interesting information,
Beyogi
Me too! = )
...And I was kinda joking earlier. :)
I was being a bit CYA with
I was being a bit CYA with the bit about there *possibly* being more than just guaze in there. I had a vague memory of reading something like that once, soo I included it just in case.
BTW, one of the two surgeons who let the woman I was talking about photograph things *was* Dr. Suporn!
When I eventually get around to revising/extending things, I'll probably be grabbing a lot of info from your post.
And I've seen some of the insanely large things some folks will insert into various openings for sexual purposes. One of the largest vaginal pentrations I saw oin film was carefully shot to hide the fact that the dildo wasn't going in very far, but the diameter was was at least 10 (possibly 15) cm.
And I have trouble figuring out how some guys manage to get the huge items they use in. They must have really wide openings between the bones.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
Crass
I think the crassesed thing I ever saw in that direction was a girl who pushed a double headed dildo in her intestines. I think that thing was 1,5 times as large as a normal one and it went all in. I mean the ass is somewhat expandable, but it can't be good to put it in that deep?
depends on how careful you
depends on how careful you are. Guys into fisting have taken arms all the way to the *shoulder* without harm, so...
But yeah, there are several turns there. each of which has the potential to cause things to get stretched too much in the wrong directions.
Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks
Do some searching
Do some searching on YouTube...
A year or so ago, there was actually a video showing most of the surgery, with commentary, explaining the process. Several American surgeons that do the work do seminars at trans/trans health conferences that go into pretty great detail. I recall listening (& seeing photos) to a presentation by Dr. McGinn on this - last spring at the Philly Trans-Health conference.
Anne