Megathread SRS and GRS surgeons and associated horrors - the medical community of experimental surgeons, the secret community of home butchers

[Deer Warts]

Are you prepared to put yourself through the difficulty of a phalloplasty to create something that won't come close to the shoes you are trying to fill.

What? Heresy! It's just as good as a cis dick!

now the shaft part that felt best before is just gone i guess or numb in places like the hood so fuck me i guess unless its secretly hidden somewhere. especially the underside of the shaft like?? that's the most sensitive part but it's just gone do they not use it??

Yes, it's the most sensitive part. And yes, it's just gone. I can't believe so many FTMs have no idea that their most sensitive erogenous areas end up as medical waste.

u/Sudden-Diamond-6965 has had her stage 5 with Dr. Cetrulo.

Look, it's the CalArts dick!

Spoiler

 

[No Batty Boys in Jamaica]

The Heaven's Gate cult convinced a bunch of grown adult men to undergo castration procedures. Not everyone in the cult did it and apparently wasn't mandatory but the peer pressure was enought that most of them were convinced it was something they had to do for their own well being and that they were making the best possible choice. And then most of them commited suicide when the cult told them it was for their well being as well.

Cults love a good irreversible body modification as a rite of passage to discourage people from leaving.

 

[GenociderSyo]

Though 80 participants would be a tiny study in real medicine, all the troon “medicine” studies I’ve seen have really tiny populations. I can’t think of any that have even 100 participants (not counting meta-analyses and surveys), so I think it’s a relatively solid study. For instance, the classic axe-wound microbiome study only had 9 participants.

Now that you mention it, I can't remember seeing any troon studies with a decent n, either. Well, that certainly speaks volumes about the quality of the research being done in this field, anyway.

So there is a free program called G-Power which you can put in a study's methods and it will tell you its actually effective size. It was required when I ran research to find the minimum number of participants to have an effect size to make the research worthwhile.

 

[Otterly]

Though 80 participants would be a tiny study in real medicine, all the troon “medicine” studies I’ve seen have really tiny populations. I can’t think of any that have even 100 participants (not counting meta-analyses and surveys), so I think it’s a relatively solid study. For instance, the classic axe-wound microbiome study only had 9 participants.

You can do good work with small n. I do rare disease genetic work and we usually have very small numbers. Your study needs to have endpoints that can cope with that so for example ‘did person die of hideous disease or are they still alive’ is a pretty solid endpoint wheres something like a cardio vascular study might need tens of thousands of patients to achieve the power to see an effect like ‘reduction in atrial fibrillation events over five years.’
What’s poor about a lot of the trans work (well a lot is but just to pick one) is the dropout rate. Imagine a study with twenty rare disease patients and 18 drop out, two still die. Now compare with one where two die and 18 live due to treatment and everyone’s stayed in to the end. The drop out rate is one critical thing on your statistical design of a study - some things naturally have a high loss rate. Imagine of you were looking at a joint problem in the very very elderly for example, you have a natural death rate that’s high. I would imagine that a small n, poorly designed study which is basically observational can be completely torpedoed by drop outs. The ‘only a ti y number regret it’ for example.

 

[Slideshow Bill]

Why yes it is Rumer!


View attachment 4942737

Conflict of interest? NONE, lol!

As far as these studies go, they have two main problems.

1: There tends to be no central authority that keeps track of troons and post op troons.

2: Many of the studies have a fairly large amount of post op troons that just drop out of the study. The ones who complete the study tend to be the ones with the smallest amount of complications.

And the meta study STILL shows that over a third had complications.

I’ll end this with a doozy of a case story:

Perforation of the neovagina in a male-to-female transsexual: a case report - Journal of Medical Case Reports

Introduction There are several techniques for creation of a neovagina in male-to-female reassignment surgery. Although vaginoplasty with the sigmoid colon is not a common procedure, it is becoming more common. Perforation of the recto-sigmoid neovagina after sex reassignment surgery is very...

jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com

Featuring a troon who LITERALLY fucked/dilated open a hole in the “neovagina” leading to infection and internal abscess.

Spoiler: Gore

View attachment 4942741

Another good example would be junkies, who are always chasing the next fix, and never could get enough.

Except junkies have a lot more common sense than troons.

A junkie KNOWS he has a problem. He might not be able to deal with it, but at least you and he/she can agree on common ground that there is an issue.

A junkie wouldn’t say that you’re being “opiophobic” or misinformed.

Troons would and do.

Lmao thanks to the tranny theme, there's so much color and when I clicked on the spoiler, little confetti pieces rained in front of the stinkditch. I've never laughed out of despair before.

 

[Fapcop]

You can do good work with small n. I do rare disease genetic work and we usually have very small numbers. Your study needs to have endpoints that can cope with that so for example ‘did person die of hideous disease or are they still alive’ is a pretty solid endpoint wheres something like a cardio vascular study might need tens of thousands of patients to achieve the power to see an effect like ‘reduction in atrial fibrillation events over five years.’
What’s poor about a lot of the trans work (well a lot is but just to pick one) is the dropout rate. Imagine a study with twenty rare disease patients and 18 drop out, two still die. Now compare with one where two die and 18 live due to treatment and everyone’s stayed in to the end. The drop out rate is one critical thing on your statistical design of a study - some things naturally have a high loss rate. Imagine of you were looking at a joint problem in the very very elderly for example, you have a natural death rate that’s high. I would imagine that a small n, poorly designed study which is basically observational can be completely torpedoed by drop outs. The ‘only a ti y number regret it’ for example.

Right on. Small groups don’t mean bad science.

And as you mention: The devil is in the details: The high number of dropouts.

We know that people that drop out tend to have worse results. So when (for example) only 30% stayed in the study through completion and you STILL are 30% complication rates, it’s not hard to imagine that the real number of post op patients with medium to severe complications is at least 30%.

Furthermore, many of the studies we have are oldish ones. As in before 2020.

The real major upswing in troon surgeries and the gold rush of surgeons is a relatively recent phenomenon and not likely to be reflected in a study done in for example 2018.

Say what you want, but the surgeons who used to do these surgeries were relatively specialized. (Especially for example the Thai butchers.) As such they would be likely to get better results than some plastic surgeon who set up a clinic six months ago, and outsources the urology and anesthesia part to whomever he can find for cheap, as we often see today. (Hello Gallagher! You crazy, sexy Irish butcher!)

 

[Brown People are Gross]

"This is so scary to me and makes me question whether having SRS is right for me" <--- Can this be... a troon actually having a moment of clarity?

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Went to check the OP's post history, to figure out whether this was supposed to be a flex...


They do say pets are a lot like their owners.

 

[s0mbra]

TLR- stunning amount of body horror, negligence, psychopathic callousness- but a lot of 'Pretty Nice Guys' too. Yes it's the same people, is there a problem?

Ahh, nothing like a little celebratory trans pride colored confetti popping off after opening that wonderful story of a little pooners dude becoming the real man he always dreamed of :,)

 

[behindyourightnow]

I would imagine that a small n, poorly designed study which is basically observational can be completely torpedoed by drop outs. The ‘only a ti y number regret it’ for example.

I believe the most recent study touted widely by the media and twitter TRAs as showing an extremely low regret rate for SRS surgery operationalized its "regret" figures by only counting patients who returned to the original care team asking for a reversal.

The study:

"Regret after Gender Affirming Surgery - A Multidisciplinary Approach to a Multifaceted Patient Experience" - PubMed

A care environment that welcomes and normalizes authentic expression of gender identity, affirms surgical goals without judgement, and de-stigmatizes the role of mental health in the surgical process are foundational to mitigating the occurrence of any form of regret. We hope this can provide a...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The propaganda:

https://www.gendergp.com/new-study-confirms-regret-rates-of-gender-affirming-surgery-are-non-existent/

No matter how bad you think it is, it's worse.

 

[Kitty kitty cat]

Oh my god this one image made me realise something...

Spoiler: NSFW

View attachment 4939514View attachment 4939526

The horrible scarring left by these abdominal phalloplasty/tentacle dick procedures? It just looks like a c-section scar So manly!

Why is that floppy sausage smurf colored?

 

[Thomas Eugene Paris]

You can do good work with small n. I do rare disease genetic work and we usually have very small numbers. Your study needs to have endpoints that can cope with that so for example ‘did person die of hideous disease or are they still alive’ is a pretty solid endpoint wheres something like a cardio vascular study might need tens of thousands of patients to achieve the power to see an effect like ‘reduction in atrial fibrillation events over five years.’
What’s poor about a lot of the trans work (well a lot is but just to pick one) is the dropout rate. Imagine a study with twenty rare disease patients and 18 drop out, two still die. Now compare with one where two die and 18 live due to treatment and everyone’s stayed in to the end. The drop out rate is one critical thing on your statistical design of a study - some things naturally have a high loss rate. Imagine of you were looking at a joint problem in the very very elderly for example, you have a natural death rate that’s high. I would imagine that a small n, poorly designed study which is basically observational can be completely torpedoed by drop outs. The ‘only a ti y number regret it’ for example.

Right on. Small groups don’t mean bad science.

And as you mention: The devil is in the details: The high number of dropouts.

We know that people that drop out tend to have worse results. So when (for example) only 30% stayed in the study through completion and you STILL are 30% complication rates, it’s not hard to imagine that the real number of post op patients with medium to severe complications is at least 30%.

Sure. It depends on the analysis and what the data are being said to support, as @GenociderSyo alluded to above. Honestly, the vast majority of published scientific articles are probably trash. The increase in publication rates over the last 5 or so years and the lack of reproducibility of data suggests that stuff is getting published that shouldn't be, whether it's because of actual fraud (which I don't think is the case here) or unintentionally poor design and execution.

You're right about the dropout rate, though, it's pretty interesting that their n is so small to begin with when the troons claim that it's not an uncommon condition and they deserve to be allowed to influence policy for entire countries. They also claim that almost everyone is happy with the results of medical "transition", with a frankly laughable regret rate of <1% being tossed around by more than one high profile troon. Participating in a survey-based study like this is a really simple and non-invasive way to legitimize their claims, yet when it comes time to do a literature search, nobody can find a study that recruited more than a few participants, and an even smaller number managed to retain the majority of their participants through the end of the study.

The attrition rate of these studies should have given someone, somewhere, pause about the data. This is what "peer review" is supposed to be for. Again, though, a peer review is only as good as its peers. Consult the first paragraph for an idea of how well that holds up.

Sorry if I sound jaded about the state of academic publishing, but it really is an absolute trashfire right now.

 

[KiwiFuzz]

Ahh, nothing like a little celebratory trans pride colored confetti popping off after opening that wonderful story of a little pooners dude becoming the real man he always dreamed of :,)

Probably closer to a full-body orgasm than anything any troons will ever experience.

Speaking of, there's an article in The Atlantic about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the article mentions that in "Pumping Iron" he says working out is like a full body orgasm. He was smoking a reefer when he said that, so the accuracy of the statement is open to question.

 

[Fapcop]

Sorry if I sound jaded about the state of academic publishing, but it really is an absolute trashfire right now.

How’s this for troons and science:

Jessica Pin is a, shall we say “lolcow adjacent” woman, who talks about vulva issues on social media.

(Not a straight up cow, but she’s pretty obsessed with vulvas at times. She lost clitoral sensation due to a labioplasty when she was 18, and because of that constantly writes about clits and vulvas on TikTok and Twitter.)

Because she recently said that stinkditches aren’t the same as normal vulvas, troons have declared jihad on her. Even emailing a scientific journal and DEMANDING that they delete/withdraw an article Pin wrote.

What article is that? Oh just the first ever mapping of the nerves in the clitoris. Something that sounds kinda useful.

But because she didn’t suck the trannycock and “affirm” that stinkditches are the same as vulvas, they want to metaphorically burn her books.

(In all fairness, it’s probably also because Pin is a gorgeous young woman, something they will never be.)

The journal hasn’t caved yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they do.

 

[KiwiFuzz]

How’s this for troons and science:

Jessica Pin is a, shall we say “lolcow adjacent” woman, who talks about vulva issues on social media.

(Not a straight up cow, but she’s pretty obsessed with vulvas at times. She lost clitoral sensation due to a labioplasty when she was 18, and because of that constantly writes about clits and vulvas on TikTok and Twitter.)

Because she recently said that stinkditches aren’t the same as normal vulvas, troons have declared jihad on her. Even emailing a scientific journal and DEMANDING that they delete/withdraw an article Pin wrote.

What article is that? Oh just the first ever mapping of the nerves in the clitoris. Something that sounds kinda useful.

But because she didn’t suck the trannycock and “affirm” that stinkditches are the same as vulvas, they want to metaphorically burn her books.

(In all fairness, it’s probably also because Pin is a gorgeous young woman, something they will never be.)

The journal hasn’t caved yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they do.

Subject of today's Blocked and Reported.

 

[narcissistic injury]

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

 

[Fapcop]

Allow me fren!

(and thanks for the link!)

Spoiler

LMAO! Looks like a bad photoshop! Or some kind of supersized genital wart.
Absolutely HARAM!

Looks like it’s not the first time this crazy she boom has had rotdog problems.

Her Reddit profile is full of shit like this:


Pissing out of the wrong hole is the worst! Amirite fellow men?


The replies are full of women who know exactly what she means:

 

[Mackerel Fish Stew]

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

 

[Sissyagamben]

u/Sudden-Diamond-6965 has had her stage 5 with Dr. Cetrulo.

every time I sees this abominable agent of Satan surgeon my brain automatically replaces his name with Cthulu. every time its Dr. Cthulu again! the pathetic mimic of dicks he's creating also reminds me of the tentacles.

of course, Jezebel.com gets in on it in a super classy way Why Is a Racist Corpse-Fingering TERF Soliciting a Porn Star's Nudes Online?

why would you name your new or whatever info outlet after jezebel? not to be too biblical or anything... but false idol? rly?

 

[glioblastoma multiforme]

Now that you mention it, I can't remember seeing any troon studies with a decent n, either. Well, that certainly speaks volumes about the quality of the research being done in this field, anyway.

isn't it transphobic and invalidating, literal violence (unlike their surgeries), to be studied like a guinea pig? also these interventions are SAFE and EFFECTIVE and LIFE SAVING and anyone who doesn't believe that off the bat is a bigot

So there is a free program called G-Power which you can put in a study's methods and it will tell you its actually effective size. It was required when I ran research to find the minimum number of participants to have an effect size to make the research worthwhile.

after the study, you can also use this to plot effect sizes nicely: https://www.estimationstats.com/#/ has python and R libraries too. there's a great paper about it, and how we should ditch p values in favour of effect sizes. no longer have access and can't remember enough to precis it.

re reproducibility crisis. i agree there is one but think its partly by design for a lot of fields. firstly, no one gets published for reproducing another labs study so its considered a waste of money. secondly, when another research group wants to apply a recently published method, they often find that the group that published it left out some key details, on purpose, cos they don't want other people doing what their doing and get pipped to the post for whatever they were planning next. its the consequence of "publish or perish" and a result of academia generally being broken.

but, in the context of this thread, that doesn't really apply to troon surgery. because the surgeons don't even know how to reproduce their own methods when applied to the individual characteristics of each patient. and, they don't care. when collect the money then ghost is your entire business model, who cares about being able to reproduce even what you did last week? plus for wider troon research there are so many confounders, many of which the study participants might be relcutant to disclose. like "i thought becoming a true and honest women would cure me of being an incel." its an entirely different type of reproducibility crisis.

 

[MalachiteMask]

is it a good idea to mutilate the genitals of someone with a blood clotting disorder? let's experiment!

'2 ½ weeks later (Open Wound)' -u/ImOswin

I will now demonstrate my Really Good Judgement™ by asking a question I don't really want an answer to:

This bitch had an open wound crawling up the crack of her ass. How is she not a ball of sepsis?