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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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
Circumcision is an emotionally laden topic. Online conversations about it always devolve into mudslinging. These unresolvable arguments change no one's minds.
My sons are uncircumcised. The practice in America actually got started to prevent masturbation. My opinion on circumcision will not change anybody else's mind. Have a good day.
44 minutes ago, Emergent said:Circumcision is an emotionally laden topic. Online conversations about it always devolve into mudslinging. These unresolvable arguments change no one's minds.
My sons are uncircumcised. The practice in America actually got started to prevent masturbation. My opinion on circumcision will not change anybody else's mind. Have a good day.
I truly didn't realize there was such a passionate dispute over male circumcision, this thread has been opening, strange, and eye opening LOL
33 minutes ago, TheMoonisMyLantern said:I truly didn't realize there was such a passionate dispute over male circumcision, this thread has been opening, strange, and eye opening LOL
memberes are a passionate subject matter. If you have one, it's a big part of your identity and instrument of love and pleasure. If you don't have one, often you are wanting to play with someone else's. ?
6 minutes ago, Emergent said:memberes are a passionate subject matter. If you have one, it's a big part of your identity and instrument of love and pleasure. If you don't have one, often you are wanting to play with someone else's. ?
LOL...
Try as I might, I couldn't explain it better. Well done Emergent!
Dany
9 hours ago, morte said:Moderators. Would question that this post meets guidelines.
I interpreted the verbal flailing as an attempt to deflect. A lot of time and energy spent on detailed descriptions of various bodily secretions while the heart of the matter, whether children should have the right to not have their healthy body parts surgically removed, is ignored.
5 hours ago, Emergent said:Circumcision is an emotionally laden topic. Online conversations about it always devolve into mudslinging. These unresolvable arguments change no one's minds.
My sons are uncircumcised. The practice in America actually got started to prevent masturbation. My opinion on circumcision will not change anybody else's mind. Have a good day.
Do you genuinely believe that no one will ever change their minds? I think you’re right that it’s an emotional topic. And I also think that internet arguments probably aren’t the most likely venue to bring about change, but I still think it’s an important topic to discuss. I personally think that over time, people can and do change their minds. Customs change. We did a lot of things in the 15th century that we wouldn’t dream of doing today.
I’m hopeful that the ancient practice of trying to control women’s and men’s sexuality through surgical removal of body parts, will lose popularity. That trend can be observed in some countries that used to have a higher rate of male circumcisions but where a new generation of parents now chose to let their son’s bodies remain intact.
I have read that circumcision arose in regions that were very arid and sandy, such as the Hebrews wandering in the desert. Like many Old Testament rules, there were health benefits from them.
Nowadays, people turn to medicine or other health advisors for recommendations. In those days, people had to be told this by religious authorities. So they would have a conversation with god, and then relay the rules to the people.
Many of the Jewish laws were to protect people's health, such as not eating pork, which if not well cooked would give people trichinosis. Mixing milk and meat is bad for the digestion. Frequent washing of hands is a good health practice. And, if you're living in the desert and there is not too much water to wash with, grains of sand can get lodged under the foreskin. I'm sure that this had been observed and noted by the religious leaders.
Though, I think the origin of this topic was more geared towards the surgical interventions done on "Gender-Normalizing Surgery" for "intersex children". I've seen a few documentaries about this. And after someone mentioned banning "all" sexual organ surgeries, another person mentioned cryptorchidism, and of course there are other "sexual organ" things that could/should be corrected such as hypospadias. An article mentioned that "sex organ" defects are 8.5x more likely to occur in males than females (and I wonder if that is because the defects can be more visible, as fertility issues may not be noted as birth defects)..
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11745830/#:~:text=Defects of the sex organs,55% more prevalent among males.
I think the banning of all "correcting" surgeries could be overreaching. And yes, Intersex, children my feel confused about it all early on, but their gender identity will probably develop and surgical interventions can be done when they can make the decision. Do not think they would need to wait until 18, but with supportive families could "figure it out" sometimes towards the beginning of puberty, and have corrective surgery if needed then or when appropriate.
Most of the "female genital cutting" is done later in life than newborn male circumcision. The articles I've read about that have often been "tribal" girls usually around menarche, anywhere from 9-14 years old, being held down by other women and their genitals cut with a knife, usually including the removal of their privy parts (the nerves!!), and sometimes includes sewing the labia closed to leave a very small hole for urine/menses to pass, that will of course be ripped open again after marriage. Some cultures have adapted a bit and may just "knick" the female genitals. I am not sure if any of it is done in a medical or sterile fashion. While I want to be supportive of people and their religious views, I can't get past how traumatizing it all sounds. ?
For boys and circumcision. Yes, there is evidence that it can be "healthier" for hygiene, etc. There have been studies about the reduced incidence of becoming infected with STDs. I'll assume that is also "hygiene" as the foreskin may be able to "hold" onto infectious agents more readily before being cleaned. On the other hand, for most men, the "head" of the member is a very sensitive area, including the areas that would normally be covered by foreskin. During circumcision, the sensitive head (similar to privy parts) is left fully exposed to the elements. I imagine the effect would be diminishing the sensation felt. As an example, sorry for TMI, my "hood" was once pierced. While it was fun and stimulating, I noticed that over time, it took more "stimulus" to get the pleasure from it. The same thing could be happening to men, but they know no different. The foreskin would keep the head of the member protected from extra stimulation and perhaps it makes it more enjoyable when the time.. uhm.. cums... Not sure how much evidence for this.
Anecdotes:
My husband was circumcised and he says he wished he hadn't been.
My younger brothers were intact (but their father was circumcised), and they were not "taught" hygiene (someone mentioned women being taught "hygiene", and I don't recall that education in my childhood!). One of them did end up with an infection.
So I recently had this situation that popped its head up ?????and I heard a really intriguing answer.
A patient asked one of the Indian psychiatrists about getting a circumcision because he feels different from the accepted norms and he wanted to know if there was any advantages.
The psych guy said, that as far as understood it, he thinks an uncircumcised person is probably less likely to get infections because when women have sex and urinate after, the urine acts as a mild antiseptic. He imagines that the same probably applies to the men because women are essentially internal with the same features of a man with a foreskin.
Interesting answer?
morte, LPN, LVN
7,015 Posts
Moderators. Would question that this post meets guidelines.