Help Ban Genital Cosmetic Surgery on Children

Learn the facts about genital cosmetic surgery performed on children and use your influence as a healthcare professional to help make a difference in the lives of these children.

Updated:  

Reports of young girls in distant northeastern African countries pinned to the ground by female relatives and subjected to female genital mutilation with razors wielded by village circumcisers to satisfy the social norms of their cultures persist. Disturbing and shocking, thankfully this custom is unheard of in our country. 

But cosmetic genital surgery is a standard of care performed in hospitals across the United States on intersex babies. Surgery performed for the sole purpose of changing the appearance of non-standard sexual anatomy in order to satisfy social norms.  Social surgeries.

Intersex

What is intersex? An umbrella term for people born with variations in their sexual anatomy, intersex is when the external genitalia, reproductive organs, chromosomes and hormones fail to align in the expected binary fashion. It’s estimated 1-2% of babies are born with intersex traits but the incidence is not tracked. Many people do not know they have intersex characteristics until puberty, adulthood, or when an unrelated surgery incidentally reveals opposite sex organs, such as ovaries discovered in a male. 

At birth, doctors proclaim, “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” at first sight. But when a newborn infant presents with a small member combined with undescended testicles, that member could be deemed an enlarged privy parts. Is the newborn a male or female? It’s an untenable question. We can’t handle genital ambiguity. To be told their baby is neither clearly male nor female is terrifying to parents. 

But in the absence of pathology, surgery is not the solution to parenteral distress.  Humans are diverse in every way possible but as interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth point out, being different does not mean being diseased.

Gender-normalizing Surgery

gender-cosmetic-surgery-children.jpg.deb8a7c3d79d47d44e7d1b28610b07e5.jpg

Termed “gender normalizing” by those who believe that sexual anomalies need fixing, these concealment-centered surgeries are often shrouded in secrecy, thus instilling shame.

The goal is to make these infants look as female or male as possible. Most babies are surgically re-designed to look like females as it’s considered easier to take away than to add. This may include redirecting the urethra, reducing the privy parts and creating a lady parts (infant vaginoplasty). Gonads and ovaries may be removed.

It sounds horrific but the initial surgery is only the beginning. There are usually multiple surgeries coupled with complications that include incontinence, sterility, and lack of sensation. Lifelong hormone replacement therapy is needed and many are left with significant scarring. Artificial lady partss need to be dilated regularly throughout infancy and childhood, causing emotional distress and physical discomfort.

Repeated exposure to anesthesia can have harmful effects on developing brains.

Dr. John Money: Case Study

This old but still prevalent concealment-centered treatment gained traction in the 1950s largely due to Dr. John Money, a psychologist affiliated with Johns Hopkins. He believed that children with “unfinished genitals” could easily be made into whichever sex was decided. It didn’t matter which sex one was born. What mattered was convincing genitalia.

The decision-makers for surgery were the doctor and the parents, with the doctor carrying a bias of authority. Parents have later said they weren’t given all the information needed and were unduly influenced at a time of heightened anxiety to make a decision in favor of surgery. Indeed, the situation was sometimes presented as a psycho-social emergency demanding immediate action if the child was to ever have a normal life.

One of Dr. Money’s patients was David Reimer, an identical twin boy born in 1965, whose member was completely destroyed in a botched circumcision. Eager to experiment with his nurture over nature theory, Dr. Money recommended sex-rearing David as a girl, assuring the devastated parents that as long as they started at an early age and never wavered, David need never be told he was born male.

Despite being called Brenda Lee, despite wearing frilly dresses and given dolls, despite the removal of his testes and the addition of a lady parts, Brenda acted like a boy, walked like a boy, sat like a boy, and even insisted on standing up to urinate like a boy. His childhood was marked by dreaded and traumatizing trips to Johns Hopkins, where he endured repeated medical genital examinations and exhibitions. He suffered deep confusion, humiliation and shame. Brenda finally changed his name to David and insisted on living as a boy at age 15.  

After a tragically tormented life marked by failed relationships and severe depression, David died of suicide by gunshot at the age of thirty-eight. Collateral damage included David’s twin brother Brian, who died of an overdose of antidepressants at the age of thirty-six. 

CA Senate Bill 225

Senate Bill 225, introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco bans 4 types of non-medically required surgery on children under the age of 6.  Known as the Bodily Autonomy, Dignity and Choice Act, it’s civil rights on behalf of infants.

According to the Gender and Sexuality Development Clinic at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a sense of gender identity starts between 3 and 5 years of age.

The bill delays all non-essential procedures until the child can participate in the decision and the parents have had time to absorb the information and sort out the situation.

California Medical Association (CMA) Opposition

Thus far, the CMA has been a powerful opponent. Despite the lack of evidence for nurture over nature, and despite evidence that surgery can cause unwanted irreversible conditions, CMA has opposed the bill.

But progress and momentum have begun. The new model calls for patient-centered care, not concealment-centered care. Two premier pediatric hospitals, Boston Children’s Hospital of Massachusetts and a Harvard teaching hospital, and Lurie Hospital of Chicago have ceased doing surgeries.  Lurie Hospital even apologized for what they call an “approach (that) was harmful and wrong”.

Help Do No Harm

Advocates and human rights groups recommend waiting until the child can participate in the decision. Medically unnecessary, irreversible procedures should be delayed. Teams of Difference of Sex Development (DSD) experts can provide sensitive and non-discriminatory care.

Join the World Health Organization, three former U.S. surgeons general and Human Rights Watch, the American Academy of Family Physicians, in calling for the end of these surgeries until research shows clear evidence of benefit. 

Similar legislation to CA SB 225 is expected in New York.

L&D nurses everywhere should educate themselves about the issue, identify their beliefs and provide support to their patients. CA residents, contact your CA State Assemblymember using Find My Rep and ask for their vote on SB 225. 

Thanks for reading this and your support is appreciated. I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

Nurse Beth,

Author, First-Year Nurse and How to Land Your First Nursing Job...and your next!


References

Colapinto, J. (2000). As nature made him: The boy who was raised as a girl. Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers.

Gutierrez, Melody. A new effort to ban cosmetic genital surgery on children launches in California legislature. 2021.  Retrieved January 16, 2021 

Intersex Care at Lurie Children’s and Our Sex Development Clinic. 2020. Retrieved Jan 11, 2020

3 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

So by your logic, in evolutionary terms, we are going to lose our pubic hair, foreskin eventually? What about hair on the head, armpits etc? 

No that's perhaps your logic or lack thereof. Why do people shave/wax pubic hairs if they are of such significance? Unkempt pubic hair will create a conducive environment for microbes. Apply the same logic to foreskins. Logical people will usually cut their pubic hairs, but to those who grow them wildly, what itches them is not for me to scratch. To each their own. 

28 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

No that's perhaps your logic or lack thereof. Why do people shave/wax pubic hairs if they are of such significance? Unkempt pubic hair will create a conducive environment for microbes. Apply the same logic to foreskins. Logical people will usually cut their pubic hairs, but to those who grow them wildly, what itches them is not for me to scratch. To each their own. 

I can't argue with your logic, it's too logical for me. 

Just wondering what do you think of Marjorie Taylor Greene? 

2 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

I can't argue with your logic, it's too logical for me. 

Just wondering what do you think of Marjorie Taylor Greene? 

Good, I was not looking for an argument ?

Name sounded familiar. I had to Google it. Now I know why I forgot her name. She’s as irrelevant to my existence as some foreskin. Moreover, she’s a nuisance to others as an unhygienic foreskin. Does she tickle your fondness? ? 

2 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Good, I was not looking for an argument ?

Name sounded familiar. I had to Google it. Now I know why I forgot her name. She’s as irrelevant to my existence as some foreskin. Moreover, she’s a nuisance to others as an unhygienic foreskin. Does she tickle your fondness? ? 

No. Just trying to Guage your mindset. You are very direct which I like but I don't agree with your conclusions. It's good to not care about her politics but as a political animal who believes it affects all areas of our lives, if you had liked her politics, it would have explained your responses. 

I don't think our bodies have any unwanted pieces. Evolution rarely gets much wrong and clinically excises the superfluous. I think human culture on the other hand is slaved to trends. Removal of body hair is such, except I am an inveterate hypocrite because I love a hairless, smooth woman. We all are conditioned unfortunately. I think that's maybe the explanation for hair removal. 

Since the foreskined world appears to procreate quite successfully, I assume circumcision is a trend both of religion, followed by aesthetics and justified by hygiene because it reeks of torture to a child. FGM is equally heinous except they apparently haven't come up with a suitable justification as yet. 

27 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

No. Just trying to Guage your mindset. You are very direct which I like but I don't agree with your conclusions. It's good to not care about her politics but as a political animal who believes it affects all areas of our lives, if you had liked her politics, it would have explained your responses. 

I don't think our bodies have any unwanted pieces. Evolution rarely gets much wrong and clinically excises the superfluous. I think human culture on the other hand is slaved to trends. Removal of body hair is such, except I am an inveterate hypocrite because I love a hairless, smooth woman. We all are conditioned unfortunately. I think that's maybe the explanation for hair removal. 

Since the foreskined world appears to procreate quite successfully, I assume circumcision is a trend both of religion, followed by aesthetics and justified by hygiene because it reeks of torture to a child. FGM is equally heinous except they apparently haven't come up with a suitable justification as yet. 

Likewise, I like the way you put forth your arguments. It’s not that I’m unencumbered with civic responsibilities, but I decided a long time ago that I will not lose sleep over political matters that I cannot control. George Carlin (PBUH) once quipped that politics is a fecal show and being in America affords one the front seat. It’s theatrics of the absurd to me. Are you on the ANTIFA end of the political spectrum? I think most of them are anti-circumcision. That might explain some of your premises. 
 

We still have remnants of our evolution that lack substantial significance to our existence e.g. the coccyx, wisdom teeth, appendix, etc. Look up vestigial organs. I hope this does not stimulate another myopic prig to pontificate about living tissues yabba dabba doo psychobabble. 
 

I do agree with you that we are all conditioned and socially programmed. Similarly I prefer smooth skinned women. Circumcised men procreate equally if not more than uncircumcised men. 

21 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Likewise, I like the way you put forth your arguments. It’s not that I’m unencumbered with civic responsibilities, but I decided a long time ago that I will not lose sleep over political matters that I cannot control. George Carlin (PBUH) once quipped that politics is a fecal show and being in America affords one the front seat. It’s theatrics of the absurd to me. Are you on the ANTIFA end of the political spectrum? I think most of them are anti-circumcision. That might explain some of your premises. 
 

We still have remnants of our evolution that lack substantial significance to our existence e.g. the coccyx, wisdom teeth, appendix, etc. Look up vestigial organs. I hope this does not stimulate another myopic prig to pontificate about living tissues yabba dabba doo psychobabble. 
 

I do agree with you that we are all conditioned and socially programmed. Similarly I prefer smooth skinned women. Circumcised men procreate equally if not more than uncircumcised men. 

Definitely anti fascists but violence is never a means to an end. Circumcised myself but I hate that I wasn't given the choice. Grandparents are Scandinavians and it's not practiced much in Europe based on what I've been told. Very practical people. Little emotional output. Grandmother is Danish and she loves an argument. Parents are originally British with a little Irish overtone and they are both extremely blunt and scathing. Very, very funny people though and very protective. They are the underdog's Gods. Never met a cause they won't throw themselves into. That explains my premise. 

Specializes in Hospice, Geri, Psych and SA,.

While I'm not saying male circumcision should be done due to hygiene I will say that those of you who think that hygiene is not a concern with intact men probably have never been in a men's restroom and observed how many men don't wash their hands after having a bowel movement or urinating, if they can't be bothered with that do you really think they're going to give their nether regions the attention they need? Have you ever been to a frat house or men's dormitory at a college? Now on dating and hook up apps people are putting in their profiles "please have good hygiene", I'm not putting ALL men in this category because obviously not all men have bad hygiene practices, BUT I will say that a lot of men can be very gross and sometimes need guidance on their hygiene.

9 hours ago, cynical-RN said:

If you read the entire thread, you will see that my assertions for circumcision are based on validated and reliable medical reasons. Hygiene is a secondary benefit of the procedure. The fact that people are incessantly choosing to dwell on the complexities of smegma rather than arguing the merits of the studies I referenced lets me know all I need to know about some of the opposing posters' baseless premises for letting the loose skin hung low. Nonetheless, I respect those who choose to wear their hoodies, even during the humid Summer months, irrespective of my own reservations. 

Hi again, 

You're the one who brought up the cheese factory, no me. And while I will concede there are some benefits associated to circumcision, they come with a slew of unnecessary risks as well. Have you ever seen a botched circumcision? I have, and it ain't pretty (this can lead to negative body image issues and low self-esteem). There are also risks of complications as with any surgery.

As well, there are definitive downsides to circumcision. Loss of sensations (this is due to something called keratinization; look it up, it's a thing). Oh and let's not forget about the fact that it complicates the act of masturbation.

And, if that wasn't enough, there is still the fact that the procedure does not guaranty immunity to STIs.

Do you know what works pretty well, thought? Contraceptive measures. Specifically the use of condoms and oral dams. Another thing that works pretty well is vaccination (namely for HPV). You do know that boys can and should have that one too, right? 

That being said, if you promise not to try to tell me what to do with my member, I promise not to try to tell you what to do with yours.

When it comes down to other people's genitals, I believe the only people who should have a say in what to do with them should be themselves. Unless I am mistaken, that was the intent of OP. 

Dany 

Specializes in Cardiology.

Wait wait wait...as a cut male how does being circumsized cause complicated masturbatuon? 

Also, there are some benefits to circumcision. Phimosis prevention. If some men get recurrent infections, UTIs.

Specializes in Hospice, Geri, Psych and SA,.
9 minutes ago, OUxPhys said:

Wait wait wait...as a cut male how does being circumsized cause complicated masturbatuon? 

 

I was curious about this too.

2 hours ago, Dany102 said:

Hi again, 

Quote

You're the one who brought up the cheese factory, no me. And while I will concede there are some benefits associated to circumcision, they come with a slew of unnecessary risks as well. Have you ever seen a botched circumcision? I have, and it ain't pretty (this can lead to negative body image issues and low self-esteem). There are also risks of complications as with any surgery.

Greetings

Yes I brought it up as one of the disadvantages of the being uncut. The choice to dwell on it has been from subsequent repliers despite the fact that I have repeatedly and emphatically said that the primary reason for circumcision is medical reasons and hygiene is a secondary benefit.

The risks are infrequent, in fact very rare and there are studies to back that up. Keep that in mind. I have referenced my assertions. There are risks for other innocuous procedures, even piercing ears.

Nonetheless, since you are engaging in anecdotes, here's one of mine among many, I saw a man whose foreskin was retracted to ease the insertion of a Foley catheter. Afterwards, the skin was irretrievable to its previous state. The man was visibly in pain and the sight of the site as time progressed was nothing short of grotesque -red, swollen/edematous, inflamed etc. 

Quote

Oh and let's not forget about the fact that it complicates the act of masturbation.

Can you produce valid and reliable studies to support this assertion? You are clutching at straws here.

Quote

And, if that wasn't enough, there is still the fact that the procedure does not guaranty immunity to STIs.

Pish-posh! Who said it guarantees immunity? Studies indicate that there is a correlation of lower incidences of contracting STDs among circumcised men as opposed to their uncut counterparts.

Quote

Do you know what works pretty well, thought? Contraceptive measures. Specifically the use of condoms and oral dams. Another thing that works pretty well is vaccination (namely for HPV). You do know that boys can and should have that one too, right?

Following your logic or lack thereof, contraceptives guarantee immunity from STDs?  Boys having HPV vaccines is a red-herring in this dialogue. 

Quote

That being said, if you promise not to try to tell me what to do with my member, I promise not to try to tell you what to do with yours

Again, if you read the entire thread, you will see that I have consistently maintained that I respect people who choose to keep their foreskin. Spare me the lecture, unless you are struggling with comprehension, then I will say it again irrespective of the redundancy.

Quote

When it comes down to other people's genitals, I believe the only people who should have a say in what to do with them should be themselves.

Granted I cannot debate your beliefs (beliefs being inherently unthinking convictions). I'm more interested in thoughts as those are subject to change in the face of valid evidence to the contrary of assertions, by any reasonable being. Nonetheless, I do agree with choice being a respectable variable, cheese factory withstanding. 

 

cynical-RN,

As mentioned before, the Canadian Urology Association no longer recommended the routine circumcision of male infant. You can read their conclusions in their official guidelines here (which was updated in 2017):

https://www.cua.org/guidelines?specialty=All&topic=All&type=All&tools=All&keyword=Circumcision+&items_per_page=10

(I do wish to warn anyone thinking of reading this document that is lengthy and contains explicite depictions.)

For the sake of expediency, I am reproducing their conclusions here:

Summary of results and recommendations

The effect of MC has to be analyzed at the individual and societal level. For the individual Canadian neonate, there are definite advantages of a circumcision, but the exact esti­mates of the effect are unknown, the protection provided is not comprehensive, accrue over a lifetime, and can be achieved by other preventive health measures (Table 2). Evidence, therefore, must be analyzed based on its quality and applicability and the GRADE system is an appropriate method to employ when we summarize our results. There are also clear risks associated with this surgical procedure and parents will continue to have to weigh the potential benefits and risks of neonatal circumcision. In an overall societal perspective, given our healthcare system and the socioeconomic and educational status of our population, universal neonatal circumcision is not justified based on the evidence available.

This is about as far as I am willing to debate this issue with you. To me it's a no brainer. 

Dany