Inside the bizarre rise of the 'phalgina': Cosmetic clinics are offering 'grotesque' £10,000 surgery to craft non-binary people a penis AND vagina

Trans patients are now getting a 'grotesque' new surgery to give them a combined penis and vagina. 

So-called 'phalginas', a term made of the words phallus and vagina, are offered by multiple clinics in the US for 'non-binary' patients.

Britons also claim to have been in discussions with UK surgeons about undergoing the procedure, although none are known to have actually had it. 

Traditionally, trans men and women wanting affirming surgery are given the option of an op to alter or remove their original genitals and have new ones crafted.

But the phalgina does away with this 'binary' option, and instead gives patients the chance to have both.

Critics have labelled such ops as 'grotesque surgical experiments' or something akin to what would be performed in 'Frankenstein's lab'.

Advocates, however, say such procedures – usually sold for upwards of £10,000 – help people with 'unique' non-binary gender identities finally get the body they want, improving their mental health. 

Giving a man a vagina while preserving their penis is medically known as a PPV, or 'penile preservation vaginoplasty'. 

A traditional vaginoplasty for males uses tissue from the penis or scrotum to create the neo-vagina.

But some patients who want the penis material preserved opt for an alternative technique that typically involves carving a vagina out of the tissue in the scrotum or perineum, the space between the anus and the genitals.

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

Proponents claim this tissue offers several benefits, including making their genitalia pinker and self-lubricating because of the type of tissue used.

The new vagina isn't as touch sensitive because it doesn't contain the same natural nerve connections, however.

The scrotum is usually removed in PPV, with the crafted vaginal opening placed where it used to be.

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

However, the constitution of patients' ejaculate changes slightly with the removal of the testicles and a resulting absence of semen, becoming clear instead of white.

The opposite procedure, where a female is given an artificial penis while preserving their vagina, is called a vaginal preserving phalloplasty, or VPP.

Much like a PPV, a patient gets to keep their original genitals but have an added set to match their gender identity. 

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

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

VPPs come with a few options such as potentially altering the body's urethra so the trans man can urinate from their new penis and the creation of an artificial scrotum.

Penis size can also be customised to patient preference, to some degree.

However, the length and girth can be limited by the amount of tissue safely able to be harvested from the patient's body. 

The penis can also be made to be erogenous by connecting to the nerves found in the clitoris. Ejaculation is not possible, though.

However, only some trans men opt in for this, with others only interested in the aesthetic nature of their new penis, not the functionality.

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

If a female wanting a VPP keeps their reproductive anatomy intact, they can also go on to have children naturally, in theory. 

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

It can take up to two years to fully heal and develop nerve sensation, however.

Most surgeons offering these surgeries don't list their prices, but previous reports have put them between £8,000 to £56,000, depending on the complexity.

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

Surgeries which add a set of genitals while keeping the others intact are, by their very nature, experimental. Long-term health impacts remain a mystery.

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

Led by respected paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, the scathing NHS-commissioned 388-page report into child gender services concluded children were being set on the path to irreversible change despite 'remarkably weak evidence'.

In the wake of her report, officials are planning to launch wide-reaching review into adult trans care services, which will serve as a 'Cass, part two' that encompasses the whole field. 

UK advocacy group LGB Alliance told MailOnline they were concerned the 'gender industry' was paving the way for 'ever more grotesque surgical experiments'.

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

They cite 2016 evidence included in the Cass Review from the NHS's Gender Identity Development Service that found 89 per cent of female and 81 per cent of male patients were either homosexual or bisexual. 

LGB Alliance chief executive Kate Barker said: 'The gender industry has persuaded society that people can be "born in the wrong body" and that they must be "fixed" with drugs or surgery. 

'It’s a business model, built on lies and misery, that has paved the way for ever more 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 surgery options: 'It’s tempting to compare clinics engaged in these ghoulish procedures to Frankenstein’s lab. But that would be uncharitable to Dr Frankenstein.

'It started with surgeries to make males look like females, and vice versa. 

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

Stella O’Malley, director of Genspect, a campaign group added: 'Surgical interventions for non-binary identities are not necessary and arguably cause more harm than good. 

'Surgeons should not be viewed as shopkeepers who can dispense whatever the customer wants. 

'They are doctors and they should be bound by the principle to first do no harm.'

A trans movement to ditch the idea of binary genitalia has been spoken about in academic circles for years.

In a talk in 2021 Laura Jacobs a trans psychotherapist based in New York advocated for the possibility of moving away from binary gender limitations when it to surgery.

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

'Do we have to stick to penis and vagina norms? Can we have genitalia that look like flowers or abstract sculpture? Can we have multiple? Can they be interchangeable?'.