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

2 hours ago, OUxPhys said:

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

Hi OUxPhys, 

This was a poor choice of words on my part and I do apologize for that.  Perhaps I should have said instead that having an intact foreskin makes masturbation more convenient or easier. 

Dany 

26 minutes ago, Dany102 said:

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 recommendationsThe 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.

Quote

 

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

 

Say no more, it’s mutual and overdue. 

I think it is quite poignant that their rationale is based on 3 variables; healthcare system, socioeconomic status and educational level of the average Canadian. They did not explicitly base their decision on risks/complications or lack of medical benefit. Though the conclusion is antithetical to the American Pediatric Association’s conclusions, they (CUA) in fact  pointed out that there are advantages. 

Specializes in Cardiology.
1 hour ago, Dany102 said:

Hi OUxPhys, 

This was a poor choice of words on my part and I do apologize for that.  Perhaps I should have said instead that having an intact foreskin makes masturbation more convenient or easier. 

Dany 

How? 

18 hours ago, klone said:

FWIW, I was married for almost 2 decades to someone who was intact (I prefer "intact" to "uncircumcised" because it infers that the former is the norm, not the latter). He had no issues with hygiene, smegma, etc. He was taught as a young child how to clean his member. Just like girls are taught how to clean in their labial folds. 

Saying that intact memberes are naturally dirty is just laughable and ridiculous.

I agree 100%. Never had a sexual partner where hygiene was an issue. The member can be cleaned just like any other part of the body and the men I’ve had relationships with all showered on a regular basis. It’s not an issue. 
 

18 hours ago, klone said:

Also, my comment was in response to the comment that male circumcision is religious in nature (therefore okay, I guess?). So is FGM. So IMO, that argument does not make it okay. Or, if religion is a valid reason for circumcision, it should be a valid reason for FGM, should it not?

 

You don't think a foreskin is extremely sensitive and filled with nerve endings? Do you know the historical context of male circumcision in the US? It was done to prevent "self abuse"

 

Indeed. I think that some people forget why humans started messing with people’s healthy private parts in the first place. Hang-ups about human sexuality has existed for eons. 

The foreskin protects the glans, keeps it moist/lubricated and is full of nerve endings. Nature didn’t make a design error. 



 

I’ve asked earlier in this thread why people who defend male circumcision think that despite their claim that it protects against STDs, the U.S. with a much higher rate of male circumcisions doesn’t have fewer STDs in its population than Europe, but I’ve not received a reply. I don’t think the rate of penile cancer is lower either?
 

Pediatricians in Europe, Australia and Canada appear to regard infant/child male circumcision differently than their American counterparts. I fully support their analysis. I think the primary reason that circumcisions are so much more common in the U.S. is cultural rather than medical. 
 


https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.full

 

If a man wants to get a circumcision I think that’s his right. But subjecting a child to a non-necessary surgical procedure that he can’t consent to and that can’t be undone, is in my opinion unethical.

 

 

 

On 2/1/2021 at 1:47 PM, cynical-RN said:

If you have cheese-like drainage dripping out of your lady parts, I would urge you to seek medical help. We cannot give medical advice on this site. It’s against TOS..

LOL, hit a nerve did I.

On 2/1/2021 at 1:24 PM, OUxPhys said:

The privy parts and inner labia are not the same as foreskin LOL. Don't be so dramatic.

That's where the smegma accumulates if the bits go unwashed.

32 minutes ago, Queen Tiye said:

LOL, hit a nerve did I.

 

Hahaha. No, I was concerned because I thought you were implying that women have an accumulation of smegma similar to the oily, cheese-like substance that builds up on uncut memberes due to poor hygiene. Mia Culpa, if I misinterpreted the implicitness of your statement. Some men think that cream from the lady parts during intercourse is orgasmic discharge, but they fail to understand that it could be microbial vaginosis. 

3 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Hahaha. No, I was concerned because I thought you were implying that women have an accumulation of smegma similar to the oily, cheese-like substance that builds up on uncut memberes due to poor hygiene. Mia Culpa, if I misinterpreted the implicitness of your statement. Some men think that cream from the lady parts during intercourse is orgasmic discharge, but they fail to understand that it could be microbial vaginosis. 

Please I beg of you to stop! 

There are men who are reading this and we worship the V. 

Stop with the horrible descriptions. We have partners and duties to fulfill! 

32 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

Please I beg of you to stop! 

There are men who are reading this and we worship the V. 

Stop with the horrible descriptions. We have partners and duties to fulfill! 

Spare me the convenient outrage! If one's head is made of wax, it behooves one to stay out of the kitchen. 

"worship the v". ?

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-smegma-5084996 

Kindly read the description of smegma on the attached link. 

And bacterial vaginosis symptoms are below. With that in consideration, one can see how the two can be conflated by someone who's not particularly educated on the difference. 

Screenshot (75).png
On 1/29/2021 at 2:05 PM, MelodyNelson said:

I am all for banning ALL surgery of genitals for children.   

What about infants born with cryptorchidism? If that does not get corrected in a timely fashion, it can lead to severe consequences. Absolute proclamations reflect inflexible mindsets and leave no room for nuance. 

Specializes in CNA, Nursing Student.

I am so thankful that I kept my son intact. He is perfectly fine and healthy, and if he decides to cut himself for cosmetic reasons when he's grown, I will fully support him.

 

I just want to remind everyone to stop pulling back the foreskin of infants/toddlers to clean. Foreskin is fused to the glans like a fingernail, and it naturally separates any time between toddlerhood and adulthood. (There is nothing wrong with a young child who cannot pull his foreskin back yet). Nothing will be able to get under the foreskin until it naturally separates, so it does not need to be pulled back until the boy can pull it back himself. Forcing it back will cause micro-tears that can lead to infections. 

On 1/29/2021 at 12:13 PM, cynical-RN said:

I have heard/read about several women complaining about the unhygienic and aesthetically unpleasant nature of the foreskin. Contrariwise, I have never encountered such claims about circumcised men. 

I remember a patient in his 50's who had to be circumcised because when he had a foley catheter placed, his foreskin was retracted to ease insertion, but the skin was irretrievable to its previous state and was quite painful. 

And that was medical malpractice!!