A look into the bizarre rise of the ‘phalgina’: Cosmetic clinics offer ‘grotesque’ £10,000 operations to give non-binary people a penis AND a vagina

Trans patients are now getting a ‘grotesque’ new operation to give them a combined penis and vagina.

So-called ‘phalginas’, a term made from the words phallus and vagina, are offered by several clinics in the US for ‘non-binary’ patients.

Britons also claim to have been in discussions with British surgeons about undergoing the procedure, although no one is known to have actually undergone it.

Traditionally, trans men and women who want affirmative surgery are given the option to alter or remove their original genitalia and have new ones made.

But the phalgina puts an end to this ‘binary’ option and instead gives patients the chance to have both.

Critics have labeled such operations as “grotesque surgical experiments” or something akin to what would be performed in “Frankenstein’s laboratory.”

However, advocates say such procedures – which typically sell for more than £10,000 – help people with a ‘unique’ non-binary gender identity to finally get the body they want, improving their mental health.

Giving a man a vagina while preserving his penis is medically known as a PPV, or “penis-preserving vaginoplasty.”

Traditional male vaginoplasty uses tissue from the penis or scrotum to create the neo-vagina.

But some patients who want to preserve the penile material opt for an alternative technique, which typically involves cutting a vagina from the tissue in the scrotum or perineum, the space between the anus and the genitals.

Peritoneal tissue, which is located in the abdomen, is in some cases harvested to process the inside of the new vagina.

Proponents claim that this tissue provides several benefits, including making their genitals pinker and self-lubricating due to the type of tissue used.

However, the new vagina is not as touch sensitive because it does not contain the same natural nerve connections.

The scrotum is usually removed in PPV, with the manufactured vaginal opening placed where it was.

In theory, the preserved penis retains both its function and sensation.

However, the composition of the patient’s ejaculate changes slightly with the removal of the testicles and the resulting absence of semen, causing it to become clear instead of white.

The opposite procedure, in which a woman receives an artificial penis while preserving the vagina, is called a vaginal conservation phalloplasty, or VPP.

As with a PPV, a patient is allowed to keep their original genitalia, but receive an additional set that matches their gender identity.

Typical phalloplasties use tissue harvested from other parts of the body, usually the arm or thigh, to fabricate the new organ.

This process remains the same with VPP, but without removal of the vagina, uterus and ovaries.

VPPs offer a number of options, such as potentially altering the body’s urethra so the trans man can urinate from his new penis, and creating an artificial scrotum.

Penis size can also be adjusted to the patient’s preference to some extent.

However, the length and girth may be limited by the amount of tissue that can be safely harvested from the patient’s body.

The penis can also be made erogenous by connecting to the nerves in the clitoris. However, ejaculation is not possible.

However, only a few trans men choose to do this, while others are only interested in the aesthetic nature of their new penis, not its functionality.

Implants – to inflate the organ or otherwise simulate an erection – are available for those who want to use their penis for penetrative sex.

If a woman who wants a VPP keeps her reproductive anatomy intact, she can theoretically have children naturally as well.

Both VPP and PPV surgeries have a general healing time of three months until patients can resume sexual activity.

However, it can take up to two years for it to heal completely and a nerve sensation to develop.

Most surgeons offering these operations do not quote their prices, but previous reports estimate them at between £8,000 and £56,000 depending on complexity.

It is not known how many people have undergone such procedures.

Surgeries that add some genitals while leaving the others intact are experimental by nature. The long-term health consequences remain a mystery.

The quality of evidence and standard practice used in the care of trans patients has come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of the groundbreaking Cass Review in England.

Led by respected pediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, the damning 388-page report on gender services for children is published, commissioned by the NHS. concluded that despite “remarkably weak evidence,” children were set on a path of irreversible change.

In the wake of her report, officials plan to launch a major investigation into trans health care services for adults, which will serve as a “Cass, Part Two” that spans the entire field.

British advocacy group LGB Alliance told MailOnline they were concerned that the ‘gender industry’ is paving the way for ‘increasingly grotesque surgical experiments’.

The group is particularly concerned that gay, lesbian and bisexual teens are being led to believe that feelings of same-sex attraction are instead caused by a gender identity crisis.

They cite evidence from 2016 included in the Cass Review of the NHS Gender Identity Development Service, which found that 89 percent of female and 81 percent of male patients were homosexual or bisexual.

LGB Alliance chief executive Kate Barker said: ‘The gender industry has convinced society that people can be “born in the wrong body” and need to be “fixed” with drugs or surgery.

“It’s a business model, built on lies and misery, that has paved the way for increasingly grotesque surgical experiments on truly vulnerable people.”

Jay Richards, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, previously told DailyMail.com about non-binary surgical options: ‘It’s tempting to compare clinics that deal with these creepy procedures to Frankenstein’s laboratory. But that would be uncharitable to Dr. Frankenstein.

‘It started with surgeries to make men look like women, and vice versa.

“But it doesn’t stop there, because the ideology’s definition of ‘gender identity’ is completely separate from our sexed bodies.”

Stella O’Malley, director of Genspect, a campaign group, added: ‘Surgery for non-binary identities is unnecessary and likely to cause more harm than good.

‘Surgeons should not be seen as shopkeepers who can provide what the customer wants.

“They are doctors and they must adhere to the principle of first doing no harm.”

There has been talk in academic circles for years about a trans movement that wants to abandon the idea of ​​binary genitalia.

In a 2021 lecture, Laura Jacobs, a trans psychotherapist based in New York, advocated for the possibility of moving away from binary gender restrictions in surgery.

“Will technology give us options that are artistic and creative?” she said.

‘Should we adhere to penis and vagina standards? Can we have genitals that look like flowers or abstract sculptures? Can we have more than one? Can they be interchangeable?’.