Q. & A.

by Katherine Cummings

(The Gender Centre advise that this article may not be current and as such certain content, including but not limited to persons, contact details and dates may not apply. Where legal authority or medical related matters are cited, responsibility lies with the reader to obtain the most current relevant legal authority and/or medical publication.)

Can partial gender reassignment be carried out?

Yes, there are a number of cases I know of where partial reassignment has been carried out, and this can be for a number of reasons.

In some cases M.T.F.s have an orchidectomy (also called an orchiectomy), which removes the testes but leaves the penis in place. This is usually because the person in question cannot afford the full operation, and does not need to go to a specialist plastic surgeon for what is a fairly common and basic surgery. An advantage in having an orchidectomy is that the supply of testosterone is greatly reduced, allowing for a reduction in the dosage of estrogens being taken.

Orchidectomies are also carried out, for instance, as a treatment for prostate cancer, or may follow injuries to the testes in sport, industrial accidents or warfare. These have nothing to do with being transgendered, but do supply a relatively large source of competent surgeons who might not be skilled in the other procedures carried out by gender reassignment (or affirmation) surgeons.

There are also F.T.M.s who prefer to keep invasive surgery to the minimum and therefore retrict themselves to "top" surgery, removing their breasts but retaining their female reproductive organs.

There have been a number of publicised cases of post-transition F.T.M.s giving birth, including Thoma Beattie, who was written up world-wide as "the pregnant man". There is a fairly good article on the topic in Wikipedia, under "Pregnant Males".

Can people who have their genitals removed not proceed to hormone therapy?

The act of removing genitalia would have a considerable effect on the hormonal structure of the person concerned, even if no supplementary hormones were used. Men who have anti-androgen (hormonal) treatment for prostate cancer, for instance, often suffer a degree of feminisation, including an increase in breast tissue. This is true when the same or similar drugs are used to chemically castrate deviant males.

Would a person who had a partial gender reassignment be called a eunuch? Is that a bad thing?

Eunuch is a term not in general use as it carries some negative baggage due to Western culture looking down on eunuchs, who were often operated on so that they could be allowed into areas where royal wives or concubines were housed. Later the practice of castrating boy singers to preserve their soprano voices added another dimension to the image of eunuch as victim. Note, however, that in my article on terminology in Polare 83 I wrote:

"If we call it a sex-change we imply that sex attributes are being converted from those of one sex to those of the other. ... the truth is that one of the first stages of gender affirmation is the neutering of sex by the removal of sex organs, internal and external"

and we should be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge that fact. If a person wants to be known as a eunuch, or neuter, or "X" or "not specified", I see no harm in that. They will be constrained in various societies and various sub-cultures by the perceptions of others as to what is meant by these terms, but that is something they should consider before they adopt the term. Nobody owns a word and everyone should have the right (within limits) to self-define.

And finally, although, as I said, there are a number of cases where people go part of the way to surgical reassignment and then stop, this is not to suggest that they necessarily see themselves as eunuchs. It is more likely that they see themselves as having come part of the way to their ultimate goal of being female (if M.T.F.) or male (if F.T.M.). They are likely to live in their ultimate target gender role if they intend to have further surgery when they can. There is also a growing number of non-op. transgenders who are satisfied with their own self-definition and see no need for invasive surgery. They simply adopt the gender role they believe is right for them and live in that role. This falls outside the query concerning those who go part-way but those who refuse surgery form one end of a continuum which ranges from non-op. through partial op. (in varying degrees), to complete op. and they should, therefore, not be ignored.

Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the N.S.W. Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.