white + voidpunk + queer + aroace AuDHD + problems disorder
22 • he/it/they/xe
Fandom/art sideblog is @agnes-come-back-challenge
I forget to tag things sometimes! Let me know if you want something tagged and I'll try to remember
Nobody ever talks about body masculinization surgery I mean ok top surgery is great but body masculinization surgery is genuinely super baller and nobody talks about it. The results are great also. It gets talked about less than phalloplasty and that’s already a lot to say
Transmasculine procedures that you might not know are an option:
Facial Masculinization (FMS) . Which includes:
Tracheal Augmentation: Creating an Adam's Apple.
Rhinoplasty: AKA a "nose-job" , while many people get these to make there nose smaller, transmasc people can also get them to make ther bridge and the overall structure larger, wider, and more prominent.
Brow Bone Augmentation & Hairline Repositioning (this usually involves adding an implant)
Jaw and Chin Augmentation (this usually involves adding an implant)
Buccal Fat Removal: Removes fat from the cheeks, to make the face less round.
Dermal Fillers: Temporarily builds volume in the chin, cheeks, or jawline without major surgery.
Beard implant: Moves hair follicles from a donor area (usually the back of the scalp or under the chin) onto the face to create a thicker or fuller beard
Vocal masculinization. Which includes:
Type III thyroplasty: lowers the pitch of someone's voice by relaxing the vocal chords.
Injection laryngoplasty: adding volume to the vocal folds using derma fillers or autologous fat. Derma fillers are temporary and fat grafting is significantly more long lasting.
Direct vocal fold testosterone injections: Exactly what it says in the tin, they inject testerone directly into your vocal chords and it lowers the pitch. This is a new procedure and we're unsure if it's temporary or permanent.
Body Masculinization. Which includes:
Body Sculpting Liposuction: Removes fat from the hips, flanks, thighs, and lower back to straighten the waistline and square the torso.
Top Surgery or chest masculization. Which includes:
Double Incision mastectomy: This is the one most people know. Two long horizontal cuts across the chest; used for medium to large chests or extra skin; nipples are typically resized and grafted back on. You can leave the nipples off if you want. There is a small chance of loosing nipple sensation.
Inverted-T (Anchor): Uses a horizontal cut plus a vertical drop down to the nipple; keeps the nipple attached to its blood supply/nerves; good for larger chests wanting to save nipple sensation.
Buttonhole: Similar to the inverted-T but without a major vertical skin removal; keeps the nipple attached on a stalk to preserve sensation.
Peri-Areolar (Circumareolar): A circular cut around the outer edge of the areola to remove tissue and extra skin rings; best for small chests with good skin snap-back.
Keyhole: A tiny cut along the bottom edge of the areola; used for very small chests (A-cup or small B-cup) with no loose skin; leaves minimal scarring.
Bottom Surgery or FTM/FTX SRS:
Phalloplasty: Builds a full-sized penis using a skin and tissue graft from the forearm or thigh, done in multiple stages and often including urethral lengthening and erectile implants (see more on erectile implants in the next section). The natal neo phallus is typically buried at the root of the phalloplasty shaft. There is unfortunately a lot of fear mongering and misinformation about Phalloplasty. Most Phalloplasty images you see shared are either mid stage (not completed) and/or haven't healed yet.
Glansplasty: This surgical procedure creates the look of a circumcised penis. A crown is added after phalloplasty for a more aesthetically typical phallus.
Glans Implant: silicone ridge added to Glansplasty to prevent flattening. To my knowledge currently only Dr. Curtis Cane performs this.
Metoidioplasty: AKA "Meta". Uses the natal neo phallus growth that develops from being on testosterone therapy to create a small (2-3 inches typically) penis, preserving full sensation, the ability to have erection without an implant or external device, and has a shorter recovery time.
Scrotoplasty: Shapes labial tissue into a scrotum and places silicone testicular implants. Avaliable with both phalloplasty and metodioplastly.
Urethroplasty: lengthen and reroute the urethra, which allows you to stand and pee. Possible with Phalloplasty, metodioplastly, and non phallus constructive vaginectomy.
Vaginectomy: Removal of the vaginal canal and labia and the the vaginal opening is sutured shut. This is not required to have Phalloplasty or metodioplastly. It is also possible to get a vaginectomy without constructing a phallus, resulting in a smooth transition from the abdomen to the groin, without any genitals. A hysterectomy is required to get a vaginectomy.
Erectile Implants for Phalloplasty. Which include:
Inflatable Implants: Fluid-filled systems (available in 2-piece or 3-piece configurations) that use a scrotal pump to inflate cylinders for an erection and a release valve to return to a flaccid state.
Malleable Implants: Aka "semi-rigid rods". Bendable silicone or wire rods laced inside the phallus that can be manually moved up for use and down for concealment.
The ZSI-475 FTM: This is the only implant designed specifically with transgender men in mind. It is an inflatable implant and has a single piece configuration. It provides an incorporated anchorage plate, in the proximal part of the cylinder, composed of stainless steel and silicone to be sealed with four non-absorbable stitches to the pubic periosteum. The pump is testicle-shaped to improve aesthetical appearance of the scrotum. It is a relatively new implant and less data on it is avaliable in comparison to other erectile implants.
Non Surgical Erectile Devices for trans men post bottom surgery:
The Elator: Consists of two silicone or expandable bands connected by plastic-coated rigid or flexible metal support rods, which hold the phalloplasty in an erect position.
Erectile Sleeves: Hollow silicone or cyber-skin shafts worn over the phallus to add girth and relative firmness. There are ones made for phalloplasty and ones made for metodioplastly. Metodioplasties are able to become erect on their own since they are made from the natal neo phallus (bottom growth), but typically they don't have enough length to penatrate, so their are ribbed suction erectile sleeves that fit over the post-metodioplastly phallus to give additional length.
You ever hear that old chestnut about how most people neglect the part of the story of Icarus where he also had to avoid flying too low, lest the spray of the sea soak his feathers and cause him to fall and drown?
You ever think about how different the world would be if Icarus died that way instead? If the idiom was to Fly To Close To The Sea? A warning against playing it far too safe, about not stretching your wings and soaring properly?
You ever think about how Icarus died because he was happy?
when people who want to be vaguely progressive say 'nature' all secular style but it's painfully obvious they mean 'god' while thinking they don't mean god
“Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behaviour, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition.”
- Yuval Noah Harari
i am not a psychiatrist but i do find it really weird how autism checklists are so often focused on "outward" signs of autism rather than what is going on internally. i don't know how to explain it but "do you make eye contact with other people" feels like a much less relevant question than "how does it feel when you have to make eye contact with other people?"
while i'm here, the other one that always pisses me off is "do you interpret idioms literally, for example 'bull in a china shop'?"
well, no, obviously. i know what "bull in a china shop" means because that is a popular phrase with a clearly defined meaning. and if i hadn't heard it before, then i would still not interpret it literally, because it has the cadence of an idiom and i would probably be able to work out from context what it meant. what is the point of this question
third and final complaint: "are you good at noticing subtext?"
i feel like the problem with this question is best illustrated by a conversation i had with a friend a while back, where i said something like, "i feel very safe with you because you don't do subtle hints and you are always very straight-up with me about what you are thinking and feeling."
and he laid a hand on my shoulder and was like, look dude i'm gonna be straight up here. i am subtle with you constantly and you simply do not notice <3
Also, please do not listen to how people talk about cover letters on this site. Cover letters are important, and in many industries you can be damn sure they'll be read. And no, they're not 'fanfic about working in your office', or just re-stating the resume contents in a fancier guise. If you treat them like that, then of course they're not doing much for you. That makes you sound like a syncophantic windbag, and it's not doing anything else to help.
I was trained in the dark arts of the cover letter by my mother, who is a hiring manager. And her training has paid off: I've been consistently told my cover letters are excellent. Let me pass on the wisdom.
The job of a cover letter is to give a prospective employer strictly more information than is on the resume. This is where you take the resume contents and put them into context. You look at the job requirements (you are looking at the job requirements before applying, right?) and look at your resume and ask the question (in your head) "why would a person think this candidate would be good for this job?" and your cover letter is the answer to that question. If you don't answer that question, the hiring manager is going to have to do it themselves, and you have way more information to work with than they do.
This is especially important if you're moving from one industry to another, because then the relevant connections aren't obvious. It's also very important if you're overqualified, because then you can use the letter to say "I know it looks like this job would be too entry-level for me, but I'm interested to pursue it for reasons x, y, and z". You can also use this space to explain away something that might otherwise be disqualifying, like job-hopping or a long break in employment. The tone to strike here is always matter-of-fact and constrained to topic - don't go into detail about health stuff or personal tragedy, just tell them what they need to hear: that this period of your resume was affected by [bad thing] but that it's now in the past and you're looking forward to the next chapter. Remember, one of the things they're trying to learn is whether you'd be content in this role, or whether you'd be miserable and leave after 2 months, which would force them to do all the work of hiring again. You're trying to establish that you will fit right in and not cause problems. Knowing what drew you to this job in particular (and don't just say 'money', that's true for everyone) helps with that.
And the other mistake? Everyone writes cover letters that are too long. One page is fine. Two is the absolute maximum, and that's if you have a lot of specific things to say. It's a waste of your time and theirs to pad it out with fluff. Of my two most recent successful cover letters (i.e. jobs for which I was interviewed) one was 390 words and the other was 550. That's the length of this post. How long did it take me to write this post? About 15 minutes to write, 5 to proof and edit. That's how long you should be spending on a cover letter, maximum.
the trolley problem except the guy tied to one set of tracks is your friend and someone you trust and one of the few people in the world that you genuinely like and he's begging for his life and he's saying that you're murdering him and he's screaming and clawing and running like a wild animal. on the other set of tracks is every living thing on the planet. its a no brainer, obviously. but he will still scream. this happened to my good friend eva stratt
Last year, I befriended a Catholic seminarian. We've gotten to be pretty decent friends. Seeing as he was staying in town for the summer and I wasn't, I entrusted him with caring for my plant.
He did a wonderful job, but as he was returning my plant to my custody, he explained "I watered her every other day, I gave her new dirt, moved her into the sunshine, prayed the rosary-"
"What?"
He looked at me, confused. "Isn't she a plant you pray with?"
"No," I said slowly. "She's a prayer plant. That's the... colloquial name of the plant."
Upon seeing his stricken face, I realized something went wrong. Turns out, this entire time, he's been including my plant in on his prayers and leaving her near icons.
Listen, totally cool. My plant becoming Catholic is a great deal for her not dying over the summer. But now I must navigate this interfaith household. Keep me in your thoughts.
I know, I also have self esteem so low that accepting a compliment feels physically painful but basically calling the person who’s complimenting you a liar doesn’t help anybody including yourself.
@caesarsaladinn I had a whole discussion with a history major who was extremely confident that smallpox is a “common childhood illness” with a very low death rate. Therefore, she believed that historical smallpox outbreaks were either massively exaggerated or used as a cover-up for something else (since “smallpox isn’t that bad.”) I eventually asked if she was possibly confusing smallpox with chickenpox, at which point she said, “aren’t they the same thing?”
One of the less deadly variants of smallpox was called cowpox, and the fact that dairy maids who contracted it tended to avoid the worst affects of smallpox is part of the development of vaccination
Cowpox is actually a separate (but very similar!) virus!
There's a lot of confusion about different "poxes" in this post (which wasn't my intention, and now I feel bad), so here's a general overview (also, obligatory apology for messiness, this was written at like 1 AM):
Smallpox:
Smallpox, caused by variola virus, was a massive problem historically. It existed in the Western hemisphere for thousands of years (genetic evidence of smallpox has been found in Egyptian mummies from ≈1500 BCE, but it was probably around long before then), and it was introduced to the New World during the Columbian exchange, which had devastating consequences for indigenous populations (which were already suffering from colonialist violence, which made epidemics much worse than they already would've been). Historically, smallpox had a case fatality rate between 30-50%, and survivors were often left disfigured or permanently disabled (you've probably seen pictures of smallpox scars, but smallpox can also cause blindness and other complications). Importantly, smallpox only affects humans—it has no animal hosts—which is why it's one of the few infectious diseases to have been completely eradicated. As of May 8, 1980, it officially no longer exists outside of certain designated American and Russian laboratories. (There are, however, concerns that it could be used as a bioweapon, which is why the government still stockpiles smallpox vaccines and antivirals. I wrote my bioethics term paper on this exact issue, and incidentally, it's one of the major reasons why I believe that STEM majors should take ethics courses!)
There were two strains of variola virus: variola major and variola minor. Variola major was much more dangerous, with a much higher mortality rate; variola minor typically didn't cause severe disease. Fortunately, infection with one strain conferred immunity against the other. Both strains are now eradicated. (People sometimes confuse variola minor with other viruses like cowpox and horsepox, but they're different things.)
There were four clinical forms of smallpox: ordinary (classic smallpox, associated with the rash you usually see in pictures), modified (less severe, often occurred in vaccinated people who got infected anyway), malignant (caused a flat rash instead of the usual pustules, associated with immune dysfunction, almost always fatal), and hemorrhagic (caused severe bleeding, and also near-universally fatal.) All of the non-ordinary forms could be difficult to diagnose because they looked so different from typical smallpox. The less serious "modified" form was often confused with chickenpox, and the hemorrhagic form was sometimes assumed to be a completely different disease. Occasionally, historical sources will refer to hemorrhagic smallpox as "black pox," with or without an understanding that it's caused by the same virus as ordinary smallpox.
Other relevant viruses:
Cowpox, caused by cowpox virus (an orthopoxvirus similar to smallpox) causes mild disease in cows, humans, and several other animals. Infection with cowpox virus confers immunity to variola—Edward Jenner noticed this relationship and used material from cowpox lesions to inoculate people against smallpox.
Vaccinia virus, another orthopoxvirus, is the source of the modern smallpox vaccine. It's closely related to both cowpox and horsepox (weirdly, it's actually closer to horsepox), but it's distinct enough to be its own species. Infection usually causes mild symptoms, and, of course, confers immunity to smallpox.
Chickenpox is an entirely different thing. It's caused by the varicella-zoster virus, which is a herpesvirus, not a poxvirus at all! Infection with varicella-zoster does not confer immunity to smallpox or any other poxvirus—chickenpox is from a totally different family.
So why are the names so weird and confusing? Why is everything about all of this so weird and confusing?
There are multiple reasons for this, so bear with me.
Historically, a "pox" was any disease that caused a bumpy rash of pustles/blisters. Chickenpox, smallpox, and the other "poxes" all cause superficially similar rashes—thus the similar names. (Even though we know now that chickenpox comes from a completely different family, this wouldn't have been apparent before the dawn of modern medicine.)
Smallpox was given that name to differentiate it from syphilis, which was known as the "great pox" when it first appeared in Europe. (Fun[?] microbiology fact: There are debates about the origins of syphilis, but the most common theory holds that it originated in the New World, and Christopher Columbus brought it back to Spain. In that way, it's kind of the inverse of smallpox.) Historically, smallpox was also known by a variety of other names in different European, Asian, and African cultures. Again, this gets murky, because historical physicians sometimes struggled to distinguish between similar-looking-but-different diseases.
Other poxviruses are often named after the animals in which they were first identified. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, though, and it can sometimes be misleading (for example, monkeypox virus was first discovered in laboratory monkeys, but it more often affects rodents and other small mammals. The disease formerly known as "monkeypox" was recently renamed "mpox" because the name wasn't accurate.) Also, some poxviruses aren't named after animals at all! It's a weird and inconsistent system (but a lot of virus names are kinda weird and inconsistent).
Related to the above: We don't even know where the name "chickenpox" comes from. I mean, we know it was called a "pox" because it causes a pox-y rash, but we don't know where the "chicken" part originated. There are multiple theories about this, none of which are definitive. The disease itself has nothing to do with chickens.
Basically, a lot of the weirdness is a result of historical naming practices—people identified and named these diseases before modern virology existed, and those names stuck, so now we have similar names for superficially-similar-but-ultimately-different viruses, and names whose origins have been completely lost to time. Later, virologists muddied the waters further by naming newly-discovered poxviruses after the animals in which they were first seen, even when these animals aren't natural hosts or reservoirs of those viruses. It's a mess! And, again, all of this is complicated by the fact that some of these diseases were very hard to diagnose (or distinguish from one another) before modern medicine existed. Now, we can sequence viral DNA and figure out what's actually going on—which viruses caused which symptoms, whether those viruses were closely related, and whether being infected with one disease conferred immunity to another—but historical doctors and scientists didn't have those tools, so they were doing they best they could with very limited information, and that led to a lot of weirdness in terms of how these viruses were named and classified. Our current system inherited some of that weirdness, so here we are.
TL;DR: Poxvirus names are messy. Smallpox is caused by variola virus, which has two strains: variola major (the more severe one) and variola minor (less severe). Cowpox and vaccinia are different viruses in the same family, and being infected with one of them confers immunity to smallpox. Chickenpox isn't a poxvirus at all, but a herpesvirus—it just happens to cause a pockmark-y rash that looks superficially similar to smallpox pustules (and mild forms of smallpox were historically confused with chickenpox).
(P.S. none of this is super relevant to the average person, so don't feel bad if you didn't know any of it. Unless you are a history major inventing new conspiracies about smallpox, in which case you definitely should feel bad.)
Sources & further reading under the cut!
Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination
The History of Smallpox (CDC)
The Triumph of Science: The Incredible Story of Smallpox Eradication
Scientific Background on Smallpox and Smallpox Vaccination (from Scientific and Policy Considerations in Developing Smallpox Vaccination Options: A Workshop Report) <- this article is like 20 years old, but it has some interesting information about the clinical forms of smallpox and how difficult they would be to diagnose accurately
Phasing out monkeypox: mpox is the new name for an old disease <- discusses the renaming of monkeypox to mpox, also mentions issues with other poxvirus names and virus names in general
Poxes great and small: The stories behind their names
Okay, this made me pause and literally write out every letter that 'fell' in order (‘oomngouuhhrsrtutpntnue’), then make sure they were all contained in 'turntomushuponthergroun'.
They are, and it's very satisfying.
[REDACTED] @anonymousandandrogynous - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
theartofmadeline
baratheonpilled
gracieabrams
tangentwithtanner
origamiaround
turnnoffyourmind
dailybridgerton
stormborns
areudirty
