My best guess is that the testosterone produced wouldn't be "compatible" with the recipient and they would want to avoid an immune system rejection?
Additionally, I suppose that if sperm is still being produced, you could effectively impregnate a woman with someone else's DNA. That would be... strange. I can see how that might be unwanted by both parties.
The other thing: they may actually plan to do those transplants down the line, but there's no sense in doing them if the scrotum fails to take.
Thank you, also, for clarifying that male-to-female gender reassignment surgery wouldn't result in an organ that could be donated.
So it's a real issue.
For example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-kids-inherit-sperm-donors-f...
https://cathompsonlaw.com/estate-planning-for-your-embryos-d...
I wouldn’t necessarily be against it, either, but I would feel I had some interest in how sperm were used in a different way from other organs. I’d also feel differently about something physically identifying like a face, and even more so about the brain/cognition (if there were a way to do a partial brain transplant which carried memories or something but didn’t transfer consciousness — seems unlikely given what we know of the brain today, but I wouldn’t count it out since we don’t really know all that much.)
Years ago, I saw an interview with a woman on TV. IIRC, she was the first recipient of a heart and lung transplant.
She was asked a question shortly after surgery in which her reply was something like "I'd love to have a beer!" though she did not drink. The young male donor who died in a motorcycle accident did drink. She also reported having dreams and other experiences in line with having somehow inherited some piece of his consciousness. Over time, they faded.
If anyone is curious to read more, this might be her book:
A Change of Heart: A Memoir by Claire Sylvia
I wonder if it's a less romantic statistic if you look at neurons in, say, the left butt cheek or something.
'medicine' will decide what it wants.
And those are situations where there is a relationship instead of anonymous posthumous donation.
I guess lots of people don't think it's weird to assert some right of control over their genetic material.
Really, the only thing a male body normally needs its rocks is to produce some hormones. Those are easily substituted. Simple silicone implants will satisfy aesthetic properties. The tactile nerve endings aren't vital to recreative copulation.
https://www.parsemus.org/projects/calcium-chloride/
Two intratesticular or intraepididymal shots are far cheaper and so much less invasive than two surgeries.
I say that as someone who was quite vain about my looks when I was young, but chronic health problems have drastically changed my priorities.
That's not intended as dismissive. I just kind of feel like it's a detail likely to be a low priority at this stage, what with it being groundbreaking surgery to begin with, etc.
This article indicates he's also missing his lower legs:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/04/23/6050544...
No indication if they made the scrotum look like there are testes.
Google tells me that "testicular prostheses have been used for 50 years to replace missing or removed testes"...
I would speculate that they would be a relatively simple addition to the surgery itself, but at the very least it would be very simple to do as an additional operation once the transplant stabilized.