You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In this reply essay, I engage in dialogue with the authors of the eight papers submitted in response to my paper, “Phantom Penis: Extrapolating Neuroscience and Employing Imagination for Trans Male Sexual Embodiment.” I deeply appreciate the respondents’ contributions: a panoply of academic and professional perspectives to this discussion of the potential of phantom penis for transgender men’s embodiment and sexuality. Lehman points us to the ironic proliferation and regulation of penises in visual culture. Gherovici, Charlap, Harris, and Weil delve into psychoanalysis and philosophy, engaging concepts of mind, body, gender, sexuality, phallus, desire, affect, and subjectivity, extrapolated to trans phantom experience. Medical and neuroscientific perspectives are represented by Hontscharuk, Alba, and Schechter, by McGeoch and Ramachandran, and by Case, who all ground the discussion in bodily tissue and neural circuitry. The phenomenon of trans phantom penis is based in the physiology, psychically embodied, and culturally mediated. In an attempt to address bodily comfort and sexual pleasure for trans men, my paper pursues three phantoms: phantom penis presence, phantom penile erogenous sensation, and volitional phantom penis.