We’re on the road heading home to Florida after yesterday’s surgery. A question occurred to me and I’d like opinions.
Is a reconstructed breast still a breast if it doesn’t have the same function? For example, when the sutures opened up on what was left of my breasts after the explant, I lost milk ducts. I also lost both nipples to necrosis. If I were to have a child, I would be completely unable to breastfeed. This is the major function of a breast: to create food for a baby.
My reconstructed breasts are also made up mostly of muscle, skin and fat from my back. They also retain scar tissue from the healing job the V.A.C. machine did in closing up the two tennis ball sized holes in my chest where my breasts used to be. My regular readers know I underwent a latissimus flap breast reconstruction last April. Thus the relocated back tissue.
My question is this: Even though they have a breast shape, are these two biological lumps on my chest really breasts?
The saying “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it’s a duck.” comes to mind. The problem is that while the Twins “walk like a duck”, they talk like something else completely. Today they legally qualify as breasts as far as flashing goes, but were they breasts on Sunday, the day before my nipple reconstruction?
From a purely functional standpoint, they are useless. Please don’t misunderstand. I love the Twins. I’m glad beyond means of expression to have them. The question in my mind is: are they really breasts? What legally qualifies them as breasts? If I were a transsexual in the midst of transitioning from male to female, would these ideas and rules still apply?
I would love to hear your ideas on the subject.