Please don’t bury me
Down in the cold cold ground
No, I’d rather have 'em cut me up
And pass me all around
Throw my brain in a hurricane
And the blind can have my eyes
And a transman can take both my balls
If he don’t mind the size
thanks!
The reason I want to donate organs is precisely because, as long as I’m not using them, I want them to go to someone who can. This sounds like that exact case.
I just finished mentally composing this exact post. Get the hell out of my brain.
Are you thinking of I Will Fear No Evil? Because that was a brain transplant of a male organ into a female body.
My wife and I added a addition to our will that deals with organ donation. Our attorney says she does this due to some folks having religious preferences when it comes to organ donation. I remember the list having about 20 items, none of them were private parts. Some of the items had notes that those parts should not be selected if one wanted to have an open casket funeral. This included things like your skin, ears and hands. I suppose if someone wanted to donate those parts, they could be added to the list. Don’t know if anyone would want mine, my willy is on the small side and my right nut sack is a wonderful shade of purple due to a birthmark.
Oh wow! I had no idea. I’ve spoken to a transwoman who does a humorous show about getting bottom surgery. But she didn’t undergo anything like that. They cut off her penis, skinned it, flipped it inside out, and sewed it back in as a vagina. (And she had a dildo made of it before the surgery, so she can literally go fuck herself. 
) She talked about the difficulties of re-learning how to pee without spraying urine all over herself. But the actual wounds… I think those were modest. Nothing like that poor guy describes.
Yep, you are right. Still, one of his worst.
No argument there.
Until I saw this thread, it had never occurred to me that some people have a preference on who receives their organs after death. I find the notion odd.
So it wouldn’t be creepy giving him my heart, kidneys, liver, corneas, etc. but OMG don’t take my junk!?
Yeah no prob here with that although unlike pulykamell I do object to using my genitalia to make a unicorn furry.
I hope you find it understandable I tried to blot the details out of my brain.
Bob was suffering from life-threatening illness when that novel was published, and didn’t have the chance to polish the manuscript. It shows. Even Homer nods.
For me at least, not who, but what they do with it. If some drunkard needs my liver because his/her liver failed, I don’t mind them using it even if they keep on drinking heavily. If some cokehead needs my heart for a transplant, you know, whatever. If for some reason a man wants to use my penis to have sex, because he doesn’t have one or his doesn’t work, that doesn’t bother me.
But like, letting some for-profit company flay my body and literally sell my skin for $80k… for it to be used in cosmetic operations and cosmetic products… bothers me.
~Max
I’ve already said that as a potential donor I don’t care. On the other hand, if I were, hypothetically, to be a recipient (say, in the case of replacing original equipment that was damaged in an unspeakable accident), I’d ask the medical team to make sure they clean off the new thoroughly because, like, I don’t know where that thing has been. Also, give me a big one.
- If the testicles are to be a non-player for contraception purposes, what’s the point of transplanting them?
- If the testicles are coming off of my corpse, would the sperm even be viable after I’ve passed on?
As others have said, “I’m dead. Let the organs go to those that need 'em.”
However, the only hesitation I would have is based on my second point: if the doctor screws up the vasectomy, and my DNA–after I am deceased–goes on to fertilize an egg, I don’t think I want my estate to be responsible or beholden to children born with my DNA, outside of my control. I suspect there’s already case law on this point, given sperm donorships, cryogenically frozen samples, etc. etc.
Tripler
I’m dead. Use my parts for anything except Soylent.
Clippy suggests “difficult”.
Surgery in general (and that specific surgery in particular but I recognize that’s my own hangup) weirds me out, but as others have said: I’m dead, hope it improves your life!
OK so perhaps to reframe the OP into more of a debate, rather than what has turned into series of dopers indicating their uniform lack of transphobia, one could ask the following question:
Supposing that this sort of transplant operation became frequent, and given that there is likely a significant portion of the population not being comfortable with their manhood/womanhood being used this way, either for reasons of transphobia or because they somehow associate their identity with these organs in a way that they don’t with other organs, should the consent for this type of donation be handled any differently from other types. Specifically I am thinking for example the following scenarios in order of least to most restrictive
- Assumed allowed unless it is carved out as an exception by a lawyer as in racer72’s post.
- opt-in unless you specifically check a box on an basic organ donor form.
- opt-out unless you specifically check a box on an organ donor form.
- assumed not allowed unless it is carved out as an exception an individual basis as in racer72’s post.
- Never allowed.
Option 1 is obviously the most trans-friendly, but there is the danger that if it sensationalist propaganda about this procedure might cause those who feel uncomfortable about it to opt out of organ donation altogether, which would have broader implications.
Options 2 and 3 by making the decision obviously explicit up front might help to assuage some of the concerns of the transphobic, but effectively enshrines transohobia by making this a transplant procedure that falls into a highly visibly distinct category.
So from that point of view, depending on the frequency of the proceedure option 4 may actually be the best option, provided that there are sufficient people who go through the hoops to satisfy demand.
Option 5 is of course the one that would probably be favored by most Conservative politicians.
I think I would still support option 1 over all of the others, but as I indicated above I can see arguments that also support options 2 and 4.
ETA: I guess there is also option 0 which allows no exception to be made, but this seems to me to violate the rights of the donor, and would definitely reduce the pool of prospective donors for other organs.
I know this is IMHO, but cite? I’m very curious.
Remember, testicles produce testosterone in addition to sperm. Having them means the recipient would not have to undergo a lifetime of testosterone injections/gel/patches/pellets on top of the immunosuppressants.
Good question. In cases of testicular torsion, in which the testicles become twisted inside the scrotum and become blood and oxygen starved because the blood vessels attached to the testicle becomes kinked, doctors normally have maybe 6 hours to untwist the testicle. Longer than that and it’ll have to be removed. So, my guess is that once death occurs there’s no time to waste…