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

Specializes in Pediatrics, Pediatric Float, PICU, NICU.
7 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Biologically our hair and nails grow. We choose to cut them. Applying your logic or lack thereof, why not grow them ad infinitum/nauseum 

They're cut for cosmetic reasons though, which I believe is that poster's point.

Just now, cynical-RN said:

I’m not trying to defend the posit, but I was rather asking/curious if abortion (with the listed exceptions) is a procedure of convenience and/or cosmetic. If we are arbitrarily deciding that the four aforementioned procedures are cosmetic, what is the basis/criteria to merit them as such? 

Cosmetic is defined as "involving or relating to treatment intended to restore or improve a person's appearance." With maybe a very extreme rare exception, women do not chose abortions to improve their appearance. So no it isn't cosmetic. Convenience is a different thread and topic, but it definitely does't fall under cosmetic.

On 1/26/2021 at 11:37 PM, TheMoonisMyLantern said:

The desire to be "normal" and to have "normal" offspring is a powerful influence on people's decisions. Back in decades gone by, physicians wouldn't even tell the parents their baby was intersexed, they'd just go ahead and do the "corrective" surgery. Another tactic that some physicians used in the old days was presenting to the parents what a horrible life the child will have if not surgically "corrected". We can say thank you to patriarchial practice of medicine in those days for the damage it caused to intersexed children. 

When it comes to sex and gender, people have a hard time with things not being black and white.

So the call for banning these procedures is entirely based on intersex infants? I thought there prevalence was correlated with the rise of the transgender movement. 

8 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Biologically our hair and nails grow. We choose to cut them. Applying your logic or lack thereof, why not grow them ad infinitum/nauseum 

That's another bad comparison, as hair and nails are not living tissue.

23 hours ago, cynical-RN said:

To expand further, is abortion (with the exception of rape, incest, and saving the mother’s life) considered a cosmetic procedure done for convenience rather than health reasons? 

Are the health risks associated with pregnancy and delivery and having financial responsibility for another human being as well as responsibility for their development, physical and emotional wellbeing for at least eighteen years a cosmetic matter? 
 

9 hours ago, cynical-RN said:

Granted I cannot debate your feelings, what evidence do you have that it is in fact barbaric? If we are merely expressing feelings for the sake of it, I think walking around baked in smegma is relatively barbaric. I am irreligious and do not see its relevance to my circumcision. 

You’d walk around ”baked” in feces as well if you didn’t practise proper hygiene. Ahh, the wonders of ? ? ? ? ? Surgery’s not required. 
 




Personally I’m against mutilating genitalia, both on little girls and little boys. Let them decide when they’re eighteen if they think that any parts of their bodies are superfluous or undesirable.  

4 minutes ago, JadedCPN said:

They're cut for cosmetic reasons though, which I believe is that poster's point.

Cosmetic is defined as "involving or relating to treatment intended to restore or improve a person's appearance." With maybe a very extreme rare exception, women do not chose abortions to improve their appearance. So no it isn't cosmetic. Convenience is a different thread and topic, but it definitely does't fall under cosmetic.

Male circumcision is mostly a cosmetic procedure from the western Eurocentric perspective. In other regions, it is a health and cultural phenomenon. 
 

Thanks for the clarification on abortion, albeit there’s a bit of semantics. I think cosmetics is not entirely a matter of improvement, cosmetic procedures can also be done to prevent one from incurring natural physiological atrophy. 

5 minutes ago, Sour Lemon said:

That's another bad comparison, as hair and nails are not living tissue.

They’re still biological matter, as clearly indicated. 

5 minutes ago, macawake said:

You’d walk around ”baked” in feces as well if you didn’t practise proper hygiene. Ahh, the wonders of ? ? ? ? ? Surgery’s not required. 
.  

I don’t know about you, but I don’t walk around defecating feces. The act of physical elimination is an intentional act unless one has some sort of dysfunction and if that’s the case I hope they seek help. Smegma on the other hand is produced by glands involuntarily. 

15 hours ago, klone said:

And I've spoken to several women who have had the infibulation procedure who likewise do not feel mutilated.
 

Grown up women? If so, then what’s your issue? You cannot legislate cultural perception, unless you’re arrogant enough to think your POV is the only righteous form of existence. I agree that kids are a different issue and as such I support the ban. Grown ups have the liberty to do with their bodies as they see fit, including aborting, whether it’s a matter of convenience or otherwise. 

9 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

I don’t know about you, but I don’t walk around defecating feces. The act of physical elimination is an intentional act unless one has some sort of dysfunction and if that’s the case I hope they seek help. Smegma on the other hand is produced by glands involuntarily. 

Any man who walks around ”baked in” smegma has a problem. Either some sort of medical dysfunction or poor personal hygiene. And yes, you can have a less than pristine butt for the very same reasons. 
 

8 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Grown up women? If so, then what’s your issue? You cannot legislate cultural perception, unless you’re arrogant enough to think your POV is the only righteous form of existence.

I suspect that it’s a psychological defense mechanism. How does a person deal with the fact that their parents who are supposed to protect them, have ruined their body to the point where they are unable to experience sexual pleasure, and seen to that they are more prone to various infections. Acknowledging that one’s parents violated one’s bodily autonomy that way likely isn’t an easy thing to do, nor is rejecting the culture one’s been raised in. 

1 hour ago, Curious1997 said:

I've actually read numerous articles about the subject matter but I see no scientific evidence for circumcision except cosmetic. I base my conclusions on evolution. It's as objective as you can get. No emotional attachment, simply optimization. 

I tend to compartmentalize certain decisions and impart no emotional investment whatsoever where biology or science is concerned. Like a good equation. If the science is repetitive and effective, I'm in. 

I would just like to make my own choices. I didn't have that chance, especially because of arcane belief systems and customs. I have come to believe though that a foreskin must serve an important purpose. After all we always cover and protect our most prized items ????

1. There are a multitude of studies that indicate uncircumcised men have higher incidence of contracting STDs, especially HIV. That’s science that’s reproducible, reliable and validated. 

2. If the inference of science in your retort was to indicate that all parts of the human body are biologically and evolutionarily important, what about wisdom teeth? Some people elect to remove theirs, I still have mine. Some have posited that the appendix serves no significant purpose for the modern human and its just a remnant of evolution. Some might posit the same for the foreskin. That is my point of contention considering the biological inference. 

54 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

They’re still biological matter, as clearly indicated. 

Well, your brain is "biological matter" too.

Dead hair and skin cells fall off on their own. Nails wear down under natural circumstances, too. Foreskin is not something that's shed naturally- ever.

You can say you're happy to be circumcised as an individual, and I'll be happy for you. Other individuals should be free to choose what makes them happy, too. Circumcised newborns are not given a choice, and that's what I have difficulty with.

30 minutes ago, macawake said:

I see no significance of further addressing the misguided conflation between involuntary production of smegma and the voluntary act of elimination. Speaking of biology, that’s rudimentary science. We can discuss health benefits and/or disadvantages of retaining one’s foreskin. 
 

Parents feed children noxious chemicals feigned as food in the West. That is a more apt example of parents violating kids’ bodies. 
 

The unmitigated audacity to think someone else’s explanation of his/her medical and cultural procedure is a form psychological defense mechanism is the most unthinking diatribe I’ve read here in long time. I was not mutilated when I was circumcised. Circumcision is a medical procedure that’s been done in my family since time immemorial. Just because it does not align with someone else’s choice with their foreskin, it doesn’t mean that it’s a traumatic experience for some of us. I would be inclined to think a person who insists on their ethnocentric POV being righteous and tries to impose it on others to be psychotic before I consider the intellectual laziness of “psychological defense mechanism” as a valid rebuttal. 

8 minutes ago, Sour Lemon said:

Well, your brain is "biological matter" too.

Dead hair and skin cells fall off on their own. Nails wear down under natural circumstances, too. Foreskin is not something that's shed naturally- ever.

You can say you're happy to be circumcised as an individual, and I'll be happy for you. Other individuals should be free to choose what makes them happy, too. Circumcised newborns are not given a choice, and that's what I have difficulty with.

You need to read the entire thread and reply contextually! Not unless you’re fond of redundancy, you’re regurgitating what’s been explained.