- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
I noticed that right now you cannot be an effeminate guy (or a tomboy woman) without some troon advocate telling "you must be a transperson!" or some shit like that. They *really* chase those eggs...
Megathread SRS and GRS surgeons and associated horrors - the medical community of experimental surgeons, the secret community of home butchers
- Thread starter cuddle striker
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2020
Yup they do. I have some effeminate quirks and they were used as proof of my trans ness by whatever failure of a doctor who did my GD diagnosis but its nonsense. Very few people care about a guy who is effeminate or a tom boy, it's not hurting anyone and some people find it attractive. There is zero need to end up taking experimental drugs or having your body mutilated
If people just learnt to be happy with who they are I honestly think the troon brigade will die out. Its what we should be teaching kids not the crap Mermaids come up with.
I was going to say that people shouldn't modify their body but then I noticed my tats so it would be a tad hypocritical to go that far (and getting art drawn on your body isn't the same as a neo-vag or whatever)
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
There's nothing wrong with cosmetic surgery at all, there's something very wrong with experimenting on mentally ill patients, without full knowledge of the actual end results of said surgeries, and then making it impossible for them to get help for complications, or ask for help from others.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2020
Plus, you can’t get a tattoo til your are 18 and some ‘transboys’ have had double mastectomy at 13!
And to my mind there is a clear distinction between modification/augmentation and amputation.
Even the monstrous cosmetic surgery nut jobs usually achieve that monstrosity incrementally (giving each new surgeon a bit more plausible deniability, because it’s not ALL their fault). These poor fucks get their tits/penis cut off in one go and there is no going back nor going forward (because trans surgeons largely refuse to fix other surgeons work).
One of the few who does revisions is Marci Bowers. Unfortunately, Bowers’ revision of Rumer‘s work on Hannah Simpson just made a different type of revolting hole:
And to my mind there is a clear distinction between modification/augmentation and amputation.
Even the monstrous cosmetic surgery nut jobs usually achieve that monstrosity incrementally (giving each new surgeon a bit more plausible deniability, because it’s not ALL their fault). These poor fucks get their tits/penis cut off in one go and there is no going back nor going forward (because trans surgeons largely refuse to fix other surgeons work).
One of the few who does revisions is Marci Bowers. Unfortunately, Bowers’ revision of Rumer‘s work on Hannah Simpson just made a different type of revolting hole:
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2018
Can I get a quote on why surgeons generally do this?
I mean the troons/surgeons saying why.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2015
The trans obsession all boils down to people running away screaming from a total misunderstanding of gender roles, doesn't it? And SRS docs ditching primum non nocere to make a quick buck out of it.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
Because if they did, they'd lose leverage to keep patients from suing for malpractice. If the patients do that, they lose access to the only doctor that'll touch them. It's a form of blackmail, pretty much.
Every one of them will follow that "code", even if it's unspoken. They'll do "revisions" but not "repair" and only rarely do you see the word "salvage".
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2020
I don’t know if it’s possible to find a verifiable quote from an actual doctor, only hearsay from prospective patients who’ve been rejected (there are loads on the transgender surgeries subreddit). If I come across anything useful on my Internet travels, say, a screenshotted email, I will post it here.
I’m sure there are very practical reasons for surgeons to not take on this work, it‘s probably harder to get paid via insurance/Medicaid for starters, and as Cuddle says above, they all know they are at risk of being shut down for malpractice, so they all have an unspoken code of never admitting they fucked up and by extension, not admitting someone else fucked up either. Bear in mind that they are all members of the same hooky ‘professional associations‘ and will know each other at least tangentially.
Plus, trans surgeries operate like cosmetic surgeries, rather than necessary ones. Cosmetic surgeons have a vested interest in keeping their own techniques secret, if they are good at what they do, people will go to them for their special service and pay extra for it. Sharing info creates more competitors. Cosmetic surgeons are the KFC of the surgery world.
So if no one really knows what other surgeons are up to, no one is gonna wanna go back in and open that thing up again, because you’re flying blind and have no way to judge if you are capable of fixing it or not until your patient is on the slab and by that point you’re already up to the eyeballs in theatre hire and associated staff costs. Anaesthetists in many regions cost as much as surgeons do, and they want their slice of the cash regardless as to whether the the rest of the surgery is successful or not (the surgical outcome is a ‘Not my circus, not my monkeys’ situation for anaesthetists).
In actual, serious, life saving surgeries, such as organ transplantation, there is far more motivation to share what works, because long term patient survival is the common goal (can’t really doctor shop if you are at death‘s door) so research is thorough and collaborative, and the surgeon’s success or failure is more quantifiable. If something goes a bit tits up and needs a second op, the collaborative relationship already exists and doctors have colleagues, superiors and former teachers to turn to.
NHS SRS surgeons (there are only a handful) are generally urologists, rather than cosmetic/plastic surgeons, so they tend to a) have less disasters and b) get sneered at by troons because they aren’t promising the moon on a stick in terms of creating a pornworthy vag.
UK troons who can afford it often fly to Thailand believing they’ll get a Rolls Royce aesthetically and then whinge because the NHS won’t fix problems with excess erectile tissue or misplaced urethras resulting in uncontrollable urine spray.
The main reason NHS wait lists are so high for troon related stuff is because no sane doctors want to work with this patient group. Take a look at the U.K. freedom of information website (using a variety of trans related key terms) and it’s clear why. Troons be crazy. Can’t wait for Adrian Harrop to become a trans specialist!
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2019
I'm not sure what official reason surgeons state, but it's almost certainly not what I think the reason is.
You should realise that it's only a relatively small clique of cosmetic/GRS surgeons in the USA, and even outside of it, and they often know each other from med school or conferences. Many are part of the same few professional organisations.
Whilst they more-or-less compete for the customer market, they're not terribly likely to take on another surgeon's work and sort of admit the former made a mess of it (even apart from the fact that it probably is a tremendous challenge to repair those plastic surgery disasters). Because if they do that, it will become known and good luck getting voted to the board of directors of your branch organisation after that.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
I've never seen a neovagina where I immediately went, that's a penis. Like I've seen the ball-sack skin obvious 'labia' but part one of this legitimately looks like someone implanted a dick shaped object under the skin, especially the center middle. WTF.
The second is Lovecraftian horror beckoning you into a stink ditch abyss. It literally looks lip the tip of a dog penis. Imagine being badly butchered and the revision butchers you even worse to the point it gives your genitalia a vague look of a male dog's genitals.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
I don't think it's about malpractice. Malpractice is very difficult to actually prove, especially when this surgery was undoubtedly risky to begin with. I don't think these doctors are as tight knit as you think, at least tightly knit enough to have that kind of code. Going to another doc will probably piss them off though, but they probably write off the necrotic erogenous zone as patient failure to adhere to proper standards or something.
Personally I think it comes down to their own hubris. A doc I know very well once told me the worst surgery he ever had to do was one where he had to amputate after another doctor fucked up. Surgeons don't like cleaning up sloppy seconds. They don't want to deal with a rotting corpse crotch. They want to take a dick and make it into a vagina. They believe they can do it. They don't have time to clean up after some other's doctors butchery.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2020
Going off this, I think it's hard to find doctors locally for patients that are very experienced with surgeries the patient wants or needs, including botch jobs. It might be a bit more matter of luck if your current doctor knows one or heard of one that isn't too far away.
Malpractice is indeed hard to prove and I believe writing something off regarding as failure could be a violation of HIPAA, (not saying it is one, but could be since it involves patient information), or any other violation regarding tampering info.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
These kinds of specialists are almost always something you go to, and doctors have networks for finding the nearest one. Your GP or therapist probably won't, but the psych they refer you to will. For example, a guy I knew was sent to asylum (bit harsh of a word for it) and there they knew doctors that would perform the surgery. So his therapist didn't know, but the specialist he sent him to did.
Writing it off as a failure wouldn't violate HIPAA. Take it from someones whose HIPAA compliant. If the patient signs the release form, and asks us to hand out pictures of his asscrack to anyone whose curious, we're required to do so. If the patient wanted the records sent, they would send them. That doctor can't alter the previous doctors notes, but he can write his own which become part of the medical history. That includes expressing doubts about the surgeries effectiveness and whatnot. We get doctors all the time who scratch their head at what another doctor did.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2018
Is there a reason why trannies dont just "wear" a sort of dilator inside their pelvis pocket at all times rather than dilating for a couple hours multiple times a day? I feel like that would keep it open/from closing up a lot better but im not a doc.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2020
I think it's rather uncomfortable/painful (you are basically just ripping open a healing wound until it gives up) and it would make moving around difficult.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
Yes, it's based on how the body heals, and specifically, the prevention of that healing process.
Think of an ear ring. This is essentially a small puncture wound right? What happens if you put nothing in it? It closes up. Regardless of how long you've had it, it will close up someday.
What if you keep an ear ring in constantly? Well, it'll not only get infected eventually, as even metal can provide a platform for bacteria, but the body will actually tighten up around it. To put it simply, if you were to shove a plug in there, it would most likely get infected, but at best heal around it. Once it was removed, it would still close up eventually. This would mean you would have to theoretically use this forever, and it would always be at risk of being infectious
At this point you've probably thought of the miscarriage of fashion known as gauges. Get the body to close up the wound but not the hole. Thats the point of dilation, and thats why they increase in size if it's possible for the person to do it.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
This group of surgeons absolutely are that tight-knit. And they're completely invested in not a single one of them having any kind of court appearance or settlement; they do not want that door to open an inch, because it'll become a flood.
They've mismanaged expectations among their patients so badly, that yes, it's malpractice.
Telling someone they'll have a "fully functional" penis or vagina is completely misrepresenting any possible surgical outcome and is a strong basis for a lawsuit, by itself.
Since the NHS in the UK has sane doctors and there are a handful of sane ones in the US, you'd think those doctors would speak up. This is how we know how tight-knit they are. Urologists are not the first choice for these people, they do sneer at "be in therapy, this won't be perfect, it's dangerous" pre-surgical stuff. Yet even those doctors don't want to say a word about it.
It's pressure to keep silence about bad aftereffects, complications, and sequelae to these surgeries and patients, who have very few choices, do what they're told. Urologists and plastic surgeons involved in this sphere, do what they're told. They may be willing to do "revisions" but it's true that they'll be flying blind.
They're all covering their ass, no more.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2016
Someone, in the tranny social media thread, months ago, posted that in ten years we'll see a documentary and it will open with the Hippocratic Oath being recited, as suicide post operation statistics and these festering axe wounds and skin tubes fill the screen before a doctor talks about everything wrong with this industry.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2018
"Have fun with your ugly little gimpy pseudopenis!"
And yet there are tons, TONS of results like this but these poor assholes still get suckered into this bullshit and if you say otherwise you're a "transphobe". I almost feel bad for them.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2020
You are assuming that the Tranny/SJW/LeftLoon crowd would allow any network/streaming service to air such a documentary without going all cancel culture on it