STUDY: Sexual Satisfaction After Gender Affirmation Surgery in Transgender Individuals
ABSTRACT:
Gender affirmation surgery (GAS) is a collection of surgical procedures that involve the reconstruction of patients’ genitalia with the aim of achieving the physical appearance and functional abilities of the gender they desire. They are classified into male-to-female (MtF) and female-to-male (FTM). This study is aimed at assessing sexual satisfaction after MtF GAS. A total of 150 patients who underwent MtF GAS at the Urology Group of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, were retrospectively surveyed. In total, we received 29 responses, with an average of five years after their surgery. There was a significant correlation between the sensitivity of the neoclitoris and sexual satisfaction but not with vaginal sensitivity or depth. Furthermore, this study revealed an important correlation between gender dysphoria relief after GAS.
It's difficult not to lose depth, and I don't believe the orgasms can be more intense post-op.
They specifically asked about intensity of orgasms post op and 38% of the respondents would disagree with you
orgasms in 37.9% (n=11) females were more intense than before surgery, 24.1% (n=7) had less intense orgasms and 37.9% (n=11) saw no difference between before and after.
That's also going to reflect the ability of the surgeon, who's probably one of the authors .
I am homosexual (Lesbian) and am so satisfied with myself physically. After GRS in 2016 with James Bellringer at parkside things have physically got better and better. Orgasms are out of this world. I self lubricate after the first orgasm. If with the right person it is hard work but so intense and I can experience multiple orgasms that leave me in a euphoric state where I can not get up for a while after. I now love my body. Still have some dysphoria over my brow ridge but in general value my life. Before I certainly didn’t and I’m so greatly appreciative to what has been like being born again.
For anyone anyone who doesn't like the paper, which seems to be most of us, it may be worth bearing in mind that some of the authors are surgeons that you might be considering for your own surgery.
They are
Renard R. Jerome, Maneesha K. Randhawa , John Kowalczyk, Alexander Sinclair, Ishita Monga
In the wiki are (both in California, USA)
The others are
- Renard R. Jerome, M.D., M.P.H. "Internal Medicine, Psychiatry" - https://www.cureus.com/users/348809-renard-r-jerome -
- Maneesha Randhawa, M.D., "Resident Physician" - https://www.cureus.com/users/365833-maneesha-randhawa-
- Ishita Monga "I'm not a medical professional." - https://www.cureus.com/users/365840
There's another post here a few hours later, against the rules of the sub, by journal rep u/CureusJournal
According to Wikipedia " Cureus, also known as the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, is an open access general medical journal and is among the growing number of journals using prepublication and post publication peer review. It is also the first academic journal which provides authors with step-by-step templates for them to use to write their papers. "
It has an impact factor of 1.15 (i.e. low), but Cureus does not consider impact factor to be a reliable or useful metric of individual article importance .
That study is problematic on a number of levels besides the flawed terminology.
"Problematic" isn't very meaningful without any specific criticisms.
Their definition of heterosexuality is a trans woman with a cis woman.
I was wondering why none of the straight people became lesbian...
Same tbh. It seemed very odd esp given anecdotally there seem to be a LOT of lesbians and fewer straight women
Oh shit I totally missed that lol
The paper is still important since it provides another not of evidence to use against insurance companies, but yeah that's pretty fucked up
The size of the group under study; the practice is not one of the better known clinics: are their results representative? And so on…
I think you're just trying to make the study be something it's not. It isn't meant to be comprehensive and they never frame it as such. They explicitly state multiple times that the small sample is a limitation and they don't claim that their results are representative of anything else. As a scientist (in a completely different field), the way I look at studies like this is that this is one data point in the literature, and that is how they frame their findings in the discussion/conclusion. They surveyed a bunch of people and found similar results to a couple of previous studies. Small studies like this are incredibly useful in the long term, since when many small studies with unrelated authors all agree, that provides pretty convincing evidence. In the future this paper will probably be one citation in meta-analyses and reviews that will hopefully be able to draw more general conclusions.
I posted this primarily because it directly addresses the extremely common misconception that vaginoplasty results in sexual dissatisfaction or inability to orgasm, and imo it's always a good idea to correct the record.
I agree with their and your overall goal. While I certainly understand micro-studies, I suspect that the results would be far higher in a study at a larger practice. A synthesis that is founded upon faulty or incomplete data may end up perpetuating the myths we all seek to overturn.
Please do not take this as an attack on you. I have long been frustrated by the lack of robust studies of our community. But I agree with you that this is at least a start in the right direction.
I became Lesbian.
all 16 comments