"I heard that phalloplasty doctors at the most recent WPATH conference admitted that the procedure has a 100 percent complication rate. Of course. How could it be otherwise? Sewing a tube of flesh torn off a forearm between a woman's leg to affirm a delusion that can never be true is pure complication. It was a third-hand account -- someone telling me what someone who had attended WPATH told her. But it's reliable account because the person who told me is reliable and the person who told her is reliable"
Wesley Yang
Let's be charitable and grant the "pro-trans" folx that the complication rate for phalloplasty is only 50%. That means that 50% of the operations will have some "complications".
The next obvious question is why any sane person would agree to an elective surgical procedure which has a 50% (let alone 100%) complication rate. Can you imagine being told that the elective procedure that you are considering has a 50% (let alone 100%) complication rate and thinking that it would be a good idea to move forward with the surgery? Let alone the fact that the new "phallus" will not actually function as anything but a catheter to evacuate urine. Infertility, the ultimate ED, pain, and the surgical complications on top of everything else. Sounds awesome, sign me up.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2050052122000129
76.5%
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/a-2257-4986.pdf
https://www.phallo.net/risks-complications/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29019859/
So even if the information from WPATH is incorrect, it looks like the "best science" says the the complication rate is 76.5%. That makes it sound much more attractive.
I'm guessing that the 100% figure is pretty close to accurate, and that the research will never reflect that. I'm also guessing that the "pro-trans" crowd would not consider that having a phallus that doesn't work for anything but a mechanism to urinate (essentially non functional) to have no complications.
How in the world do people pay for these elective mutilations?
4 comments:
But of course the REAL motivating factor for opposition to "gender diversity" can only be blind devotion to a "petty godling".
Wellllllllllll, I guess so. Of course one wonders what the motivation to reject "The Science" (75-100% complication rate) in favor of a different god is.
I'm wondering if insurance companies pay for this worthless junk!
My experience is that insurance companies rarely pay for elective surgery, and these all seem to be elective.
Yet, the "trans" medical industrial complex is making millions (and probably not paying their fair share of taxes) by catering to these people. Who'd have thought that rich doctors would be celebrated for getting richer by mutilating people unnecessarily, and that people who hate the rich would be cheering them on?
Post a Comment