A group of scientists have artifically cultured part of the penis (the corpus cavernosa) and implanted them in rabbits that have had that portion of their penis removed. The reconstructed penises became fully erect when stimulated. 4 of the 8 rabbits went on to succesfully breed.
Penis construction has long been a problem for female-to-male transgenders. Human penises are more complicated organs than most other mammalians, as humans lack a bacculum (penis bone; seriously). The penis uses highly specialized tissues to achieve tumescence through hydrolic pressures. This is not easily replicated surgically. The most common practice is to implant a section of bone in the formed penis. This does not allow the penis to become flaccid. There have been some attempts to use cadaver tissue. These were less than succesful. They also run the risk of rejection. This new technology could allow the construction of normal penises for female-to-male transgenders without risking rejection.
P.S. This is my first community post.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Advances in Genital Construction.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17159
"This new technology could allow the construction of normal penises for female-to-male transgenders without risking rejection."
There are a few problems with this:
First, "transgender" is an adjective, not a noun. There is no such thing as "a transgender". There are only "transgender people." "transgender" is not a separate category of people, its just a word that describes some people.
Second, what does "normal penis" mean?
I'm guessing it means "cis penis." You are talking about real people's genitals, and words like "normal" and "abnormal" are highly judgmental.
"I'm guessing it means "cis penis." You are talking about real people's genitals, and words like "normal" and "abnormal" are highly judgmental."
Normal probably means functional, realistic, and responsive. It's no secret that many FTM transsexuals are either dissatisfied with the current techniques at creating a penis, or abstain from attempting them at all because of the risk they will lose the ability to have sexual pleasure all together. Current FTM genital surgeries can seriously damage the person's abilities to have orgasms.
I seriously hope this technology can eventually be used to allow any person who wishes to have a penis to have one that is functional and pleasing to them.
I'm seconding the suggestion that the OP probably meant "functional, realistic and responsive" where the word "normal" was used, though I agree that the use of that word is deeply problematic.
Trans men are not the only men who would need genital reconstruction. I think it depends on the person, a cisman might want to hear that his constructed penis is like a normal penis- may find confidence in that reassurance that his "replacement" is as good or "normal" as what he had before. Whereas a trans man may be more sensitive to normal meaning cis-normative and thus make him feel insecure.
That hardly sounds like a good reason to mutilate animals.
Very true, I agree.
Not because I have anything against developing technologies/medicine to help trans people, but because I oppose animal testing in general.
The animals weren't actually hurt that much more than your dog when you fix them-- and they were repaired afterwards to the point of being able to reproduce. This technology will also lead to organ growing and other such techniques that could save billions of lives, and it didn't even involve an animal dying.
The thing is, yeah, it's growing penises, but they're actually interested in growing hearts and lungs. This was just a place to start--preliminary research. So it is a good reason. It will lead to technology that will save millions of lives, reduce the risk and cost of organ transplants, and stop black market organ trade. Best of all, it does all that without causing any long-term damage to the animals in question. This is the IDEAL animal testing-- enormous benefit without actual harm to the animals.
"This is the IDEAL animal testing-- enormous benefit without actual harm to the animals."
I doubt the animals involved thought there was no harm to them, but I'm guessing that no one thought to ask.
I'm pretty radical about this, and I know most people will disagree with me, but I believe that relationships with animals, like relationships with other humans, need to be based on consent.
And just to be perfectly clear, an animal cannot consent when it is imprisoned or when it is dependent on its owner for basic needs such as food and shelter.
I don't think that is radical at all. Ethical is more apt.
The trouble with the word "radical" is that its a relative term.
Yeah I know. I guess it is radical to some, but straight forward right thinking to me, and I think to you.
I prefer niave, but what do I know ...
So do you believe that we shouldn't spade or neuter animals? That's certainly done without their consent.
I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think about it.
I'm not a vet or suchlike, but pretty sure that animals that are neutered don't have their penis cut off, as the animals in the experiment refered to above have. Obviously animals that are spayed don't have their penis cut off as they don't have one.
I don't advocate that a 'spade' should be used on any animal unless they are already dead, for example clearing up dead rats the cats bring home definately calls for a spade.
I don't think people should even have pets. At least, not pets that they didn't adopt from the street or from an animal shelter.
As it is, we made our pets dependent on us, and they are therefor our responsibility. neutering seems like a lesser evil than having more starving animals on the streets, or having more animals euthanized in animal shelters.
I've heard that, in the case of many medicines, there are computer simulations that are more accurate than animal testing, but that they're not used everywhere they could be because of the expense. IMO, testing on animals in those cases is definitely wrong, but I'm not sure how I feel about cases like this. It seems like the only real alternatives would be to test on humans straightaway or abandon the project altogether.
I find that hard to believe. Someone had to design the simulation, but the whole point of doing an actual test is that you might find out something that was not foreseen, and therefore could not have been put into the simulation. Whether or not its worth doing a particular experiment is a whole separate issue, but conceptually there are always going to be situations where a real experiment is necessary even if you've done simulations.
Is it really that hard to believe? We used to use animals instead of crash test dummies, but at the end of the day, a well-built dummy tells us more about how humans will be injured in a crash than a pig.
Yes, it really is very hard to believe. We can do that with crash-test dummies because physics is WAY easier than biology.
Come on. Don't insert science into the conversation. That would be totally unfair; it's much easier to think about a wonderful world where veterinary and medical science are where they are circa 1800 but all the bunnies are free. Besides, we scientists only experiment on animals to get our rocks off, not because animal models are a million times more sophisticated than a computer model, which can only do what the programmer tells it to do.
Crash testing of cars is relatively simple. The testers have a reasonable idea of how the human body is affected by the types of forces suffered in car crashes, so it's easy to judge how safe a car is based on sensor measurements from crash test dummies. (Animals obviously aren't much use for this anyway - they're not very human-shaped.)
On the other hand, a full computer model for drugs testing would require complete knowledge of all the biochemical reactions in the human body. Science isn't even close to knowing that - and even if it did, any model would have to be simplified somehow, since simulating an entire human at the molecular level is not even nearly within reach.
Here's an example. There was a test done in England in the last two years (I don't have time to find a link right now, but it was a big news) that had unexpectedly horrific results. They weren't even testing the effectiveness of this new drug, they were just testing safety, which meant that they inserted the volunteers with an amount that was drastically smaller than the amount they thought would affect them at all. They had tested it on lots of animals, too, and everything was fine. But seconds after inserting this tiny amount, the volunteers started going into multiple organ failure, and it was a huge disaster. The conclusion (in laymens terms) was that it had set off responses based on past diseases the participants had had, and since lab animals had lived in a sterile environment and not had past diseases, no one had thought of that. I doubt anyone would have designed a simulation (for human testing, in this case) before that that would have come up with that result.
I'm not saying there aren't some cases where simulations are useful. For example, surgeons can now practice surgery on dummies or computer simulations, which is great because established types of surgery can be simulated reasonably well, and its better to practice on something other than a real person first. But even then, it doesn't predict what will happen in each individual surgery. Its about practice. Sure, practice on a simulation first, if you can. But at some point, you have to try the real thing and you can't assume that you've predicted what will happen then. There are so many factors-- maybe eventually we can identify and control all of the factors in the human body, but that's a looong way off, if at all.
My thoughts exactly. Wahay to us that we have the power to cut off a penis and reconstruct it. Feeling very proud right now...not!
Oh, here come the self rightous animal rights feminists attacking science in the name of equality for all the species again.
We don't live in a Utopian world in which everyone was born with the same physical ability and health. If, by cutting a few penises off rabbits, we are able to further the qualities of life of human beings, I am all for it.
Nice to know you think a human being's happiness and satisfaction with his/her own sexuality, is less important than the life of an animal.
It's called science - something I expect feminists to get behind, because the alternative is the 15th Century thinking that anti-feminists and religious conservatives claim as values.
I'll take a human being's ability to orgasm over a rabbit's penis any day.
"Nice to know you think a human being's happiness and satisfaction with his/her own sexuality, is less important than the life of an animal."
"I'll take a human being's ability to orgasm over a rabbit's penis any day."
You're argument is morally reprehensible. Animals are not property to be used. Whether or not it improves our lives is entirely irrelevant.
At least you're blunt about it though.
Do you want to go further into it than emotionally screaming, "Animals are not property?" Quite frankly, it makes you look silly, and cannot be taken seriously. Your argument is no different than the "Save the babies" or "Abortion kills" arguments that the fundamentalist conservative anti-choicers like to use.
If you want to be taken seriously in feminism, take serious stands for women, or at the very least, make your arguments a bit more concrete and presentable.
Yeah, I am a feminist, but I am also realistic about what I can change and cannnot change - and I have priorities. If I have to call out another feminist for forgetting who women's rights should be about, I'll sure as hell do it.
Really, Marc? Do we want to have this conversation again? Again, please don't tell me what feminists should and should not "get behind." People have different opinions and priorities, deal with it. You don't have to like it, but you might try accepting it.
When your love for animals trumps feminism and scientific advances, then I think I have the right to speak out.
For the love of God, try to be supporters of women rather than Fido's best friend. Is that too much to ask from a feminist?
For the last fucking time, the two are not mutually exclusive.
the end.
But when you say that whatever is being done to better the lives of humans is unethical because of your own considerations for animals, you're advocating a push in protecting such animals, thus limited the progress humans can make. It's not a hard concept to understand, and quite frankly, I am shocked that a seemingly intelligent feminist like yourself don't seem to get it.
You save the whales, monkeys and whatever animals you want as much as you want - I don't care about it.
But when you become vocal about so-called mistreatments of animals, when it clearly can save the lives of many women in these scientific researches, I have a problem with it.
That all opinions ought to be respected is absurd. I don't respect the opinions of a person who places animal rights over humans anymore than I do an anti-choice conservative.
This is not the forum to debate this. And I don't debate people with who don't show me respect and question my intelligence and integrity.
This is not the forum to debate this. And I don't debate with people who don't show me respect and question my intelligence and integrity.
"Nice to know you think a human being's happiness and satisfaction with his/her own sexuality, is less important than the life of an animal."
That's a little bit simplistic. One doesn't have to think that humans are LESS important than animals to think that animal testing for human benefit is wrong ... one could draw the conclusion that animal testing for human benefit is wrong based on the belief that (1) humans and animals are EQUALLY important and/or (2) the assumption that testing on animals is the only (or even the best) way to make gains for human benefit is false.
Well, hello sarcasm!
I believe very strongly in animal rights and this really hit a raw nerve with me.
In this particular instance, the way to test the tissue growth techniques and its efficacy is through animal testing. It sucks, but there's no computer model which says grown tissue can be used, will be accepted or rejected, or is even - at the end of the day - viable for human use.
Do you know of anyone who would put their genitals on the line for something which failed 50% of the time? I really don't think so. Not enough to make a viable study, anyway.
As for your response, there is no one particular way to be feminist. Animal Rights activists aren't all PETA-crazed lunatics who think that women should be used as pawns to get people to care about animal rights. Caring about people and how people live and how to make people's lives better isn't all that different from caring about animals and how animals live and how to make animals' lives better. Because it's about caring about other living beings' needs.
Sorry if it's too cushy and emotional for you to accept, however it's really the way a lot of people feel. Feminism is to make women's lives better. Animal Rights Activism is about making animals' lives better.
I don't believe this research is really about growing new lungs or helping trans people, though I am glad if it does.
I think they experimented with penises because whoever develops technology that actually allows a man to enlarge his dick is going to be a zillionaire. Indeed the only person who is going to be richer than that person, is the one who - because everyone can see the head on your shoulders but not everyone can see the head on your penis - completes the cure for baldness.
Wow. Congratulations on having written the most cynical thing I've seen on the internet this week. =)
(Of course, it is only Sunday.)
I wonder what it says about me that I didn't find the comment cynical at all ... I just thought it was perceptive ...
Me too.
I didn't even think it was perceptive-- it seems obvious, not cynical. No offense, I just meant that I agreed with you so much I didn't even think it needed to be posted.
It'll backfire if they make them too big though. After awhile it just hurts, and they'll end up only being able to date women who can handle it.
True like many (most?) men do not like overly large fake breasts but that doesn't seem to stop people getting them.
Much obliged ;)
I'm going to go out on a limb but it would be nice if they could make artfifical genitals so everyone can have sex using either genital. Dildos that feel and vaginas for cis men. Fun? Why werent we all just born with both?
Wouldn't it make life a lot easier for all if we were just one gender!!!
I think its wonderful we weren't all born with both.
I think if you were born the gender you wanted to be (including intersexed) that would be great but wishing one over all for everyone is...horrible. Not everyone wants both, clearly.
Can we keep this about trans issues instead of animal rights? Both are important, but trans-issue threads always seem to devolve into something not trans-related.
Seconding the objection to "transgender" as a noun.
Seconding the questioning of "normal" as a descriptor of genitalia.
Now, my main question/concern: I think that it IS a problem that MTF sex reassignment surgery is vastly better than FTM surgery. I don't know if it has to do with the complexity of creating a penis out of whole cloth as opposed to the complexity of creating a vagina with extra tissue already available, or if it has to do with the lesser visibility of trans men (which is a whole question in itself), or both, or something else entirely. And I do support research to discover means of doing these surgeries better, for trans women AND men. But I am concerned by the teleology of "normal" genitalia, and the idea that sex and gender correspond to a given bodily ideal. How do we balance the rights of trans people to have the bodies they need, with the need to deconstruct a paradigm of gender/sex/sexuality that posits a variety of harmful (to trans and cis people), regulatory bodily ideals/constructs?
Thoughts?
Very sorry if I've phrased any of this badly.
This. I was disappointed to see so many comments, yet most of them were not trans-related.
In response to your question: We can work to deconstruct societal attitudes, while still affirming individual's choices about their bodies. We can push for all body types to be accepted as "normal" and not stigmatized, while supporting people who are unhappy with their bodies, who want to pursue various methods of changing them. For example, we can encourage breast enlargement research and availability for people who feel they need it (such as some trans women), while opposing the social stigma towards small breasts and the idealization of large breasts that encourages many people to seek it.
I dunno. I tend to see nefarious ends in everything, but I don't know how related tissue growth research is to body constructs. It seems like there are some inherent problems with science in this regard. Like here, the constructed penis is counted as a success if it can be used to impregnate a female animal. Granted, it's difficult to interview rabbits about their sexual satisfaction, but the "a real man is virile" idea is still damaging. I guess I don't know how much of the problem has to do with the biases of researchers and how much has to do with the nature of scientific questions and hypothesis testing.
The media disseminating findings like this is more responsible for dealing with cultural baggage than the researchers, I think. The scientists could be the most trans-positive people in the world, but that doesn't matter if the New York Post decides that "Women grows penis" is a good headline. Which, in all likelihood, it will, both because transphobia is rampant and science reporting generally sucks.
Fair enough! But I do think that there should be a forum (perhaps another community post?) to debate other issues.
I just wanted to acknowledge anony-mouse's disclaimer about this being their first post. I really commend you for finding your voice. It's very difficult to put yourself out there, even in a forum that's supposed to be about discussion and debate and not personal attacks. I also want to acknowledge the mistakes you made in terminology. I hope you understand how they can be offensive and I hope you don't take them personally and learn from what others have said in response to them. Great post and congrats!
" I don't know if it has to do with the complexity of creating a penis out of whole cloth as opposed to the complexity of creating a vagina with extra tissue already available, or if it has to do with the lesser visibility of trans men (which is a whole question in itself), or both, or something else entirely. "
Creation of a neo vagina ./clitoris is major surgery. A good SRS surgeon will take around 8 hours to do it - the clitoris is relocated glans penis tissue, with a maintained blood and nerve supply ( and alleluia works ) and the neo vagina itself is lined with scrotal or penile skin, depending on the exact technique and how the labia are constructed. Challenging enough..
the surgery to construct a neo penis is clearly going to be much more complex, as it has to be a pole from time to time. I believe it takes 3 or 4 major operations. Trans men are better accepted socially, as a rule, but the genitalia are not as close to original equipment as state of the art surgery on a trans woman. If you want to know more - google will direct you!
" I don't know if it has to do with the complexity of creating a penis out of whole cloth as opposed to the complexity of creating a vagina with extra tissue already available, or if it has to do with the lesser visibility of trans men (which is a whole question in itself), or both, or something else entirely. "
Creation of a neo vagina ./clitoris is major surgery. A good SRS surgeon will take around 8 hours to do it - the clitoris is relocated glans penis tissue, with a maintained blood and nerve supply ( and alleluia works ) and the neo vagina itself is lined with scrotal or penile skin, depending on the exact technique and how the labia are constructed. Challenging enough..
the surgery to construct a neo penis is clearly going to be much more complex, as it has to be a pole from time to time. I believe it takes 3 or 4 major operations. Trans men are better accepted socially, as a rule, but the genitalia are not as close to original equipment as state of the art surgery on a trans woman. If you want to know more - google will direct you!