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

9 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

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

I replied to your reply to me. For the sake of clarity, I've not replied to (or included) anything that anyone else has said.

A final thought: How did we discover all the supposed "health benefits" of chopping up a newborn's genitals and decide to have at it en masse? ...or did something quite opposite occur? First we did the chopping, and then we came up with the justification?

These are rhetorical questions as I plan to bow out now, no matter how tempted I am to keep going. ?

 

 

37 minutes ago, cynical-RN 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.

You do realize that you were the one who brought this up? I doubt anyone else would have gone off on the smegma tangent if you hadn’t.

 

37 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

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

I never said that feeding your children food devoid of nutrients isn’t a problem. It is. But so is in my opinion, subjecting children to unnecessary surgeries. 


 

37 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

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. 

The unmitigated audacity? Psychotic? You’re being melodramatic. I didn’t claim this to be the one and only truth but I do think that might be a part of the reason that some women who have been circumcised defend the practice. It comes from personal experience. I have two coworkers who are both refugees from parts of the world where this is a common practice. Over the years we’ve become friends and they’ve opened up and talked about some painful experiences they have. Hearing their stories is part of what’s made me think the way I do. I can’t get into any more details than that as it wouldn’t be fair to then to discuss them on a message board. 
 

About circumcisions and STDs, compare the rates of gonorrhea in 2017 in the U.S. (171.9/100,000) and in various European countries (average 22.2/100,000, range between 0.2 and 74.7/100,000). Any thoughts on them?


https://www.CDC.gov/std/stats17/gonorrhea.htm


https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/gonorrhoea-annual-epidemiological-report-2017.pdf

21 minutes ago, Sour Lemon said:

I replied to your reply to me. For the sake of clarity, I've not replied to (or included) anything that anyone else has said.

A final thought: How did we discover all the supposed "health benefits" of chopping up a newborn's genitals and decide to have at it en masse? ...or did something quite opposite occur? First we did the chopping, and then we came up with the justification?

These are rhetorical questions as I plan to bow out now, no matter how tempted I am to keep going. ?

 

 

My contention is context matters. The poster I was replying to had indicated that s/he had not come across any health benefits of circumcision and that as such, she was basing her observations on the fact that males biologically and evolutionarily have the foreskin. I pointed out hair and nails being biological and serve no purpose. Additionally, I pointed out some could make the same argument for the appendix, wisdom teeth etc. what’s the medical purpose of retaining the foreskin? Last thing I needed is a silly lecture of what’s biological tissue or not, detracting from the merit of the dialogue. Moreover, I had mentioned that there are circumcision techniques that spare the foreskin. Lastly, nobody here is staunchly advocating the “chopping of newborns’ genitalia”. Many cultures circumcise boys during the pubescent years. The infatuation with infant genitalia is primarily a western concept. As far as the rhetorical question perhaps you can help me with one that many wise men and women have pondered for millennia. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? ?

1 hour 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 

Touche'

Except I think they are made of keratin or cartilage, can't exactly remember, keratin I think though. AND I HAVE never had to use anesthetics during the process of cutting them. Something to really think about. 

My take is, I didn't get to make the choice and if you are a man, it's probably our most prized possession based on the amount of time dedicated to its satisfaction??and for someone who values interlectual pursuits above everything else, that's saying something! 

6 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

My contention is context matters. The poster I was replying to had indicated that s/he had not come across any health benefits of circumcision and that as such, she was basing her observations on the fact that makes biologically and evolutionarily have the foreskin. I pointed out hair and nails being biological and serve no purpose. Additionally, I pointed out some could make the same argument for the appendix, wisdom teeth etc. what’s the medical purpose of retaining the foreskin? Last thing I needed is a silly lecture of what’s biological tissue or not, detracting from the merit of the dialogue. Moreover, I had mentioned that there are circumcision techniques that spare the foreskin. Lastly, nobody here is staunchly advocating the “chopping of newborns’ genitalia”. Many cultures circumcise boys during the pubescent years. The infatuation with infant genitalia is primarily a western concept. As far as the rhetorical question perhaps you can help me with one that many wise men and women have pondered for millennia. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? 

I totally like how you argue your points and I will willingly accept your points of view as being valid but different from mine. 

It's just my own hang up, I can't stand anyone being in pain either physically or emotionally. I understand it's an evolutionary process psychologically but severe mind conditioning from compromised educated parents, tend to leave you scarred. They always stood up to any impositions inflicted upon anyone. 

I respect your position. 

12 minutes ago, macawake said:

You do realize that you were the one who brought this up? I doubt anyone else would have gone off on the smegma tangent if you hadn’t.

 

I never said that feeding your children food devoid of nutrients isn’t a problem. It is. But so is in my opinion, subjecting children to unnecessary surgeries. 


 

The unmitigated audacity? Psychotic? You’re being melodramatic. I didn’t claim this to be the one and only truth but I do think that might be a part of the reason that some women who have been circumcised defend the practice. It comes from personal experience. I have two coworkers who are both refugees from parts of the world where this is a common practice. Over the years we’ve become friends and they’ve opened up and talked about some painful experiences they have. Hearing their stories is part of what’s made me think the way I do. I can’t get into any more details than that as it wouldn’t be fair to then to discuss them on a message board. 
 

About circumcisions and STDs, compare the rates of gonorrhea in 2017 in the U.S. (171.9/100,000) and in various European countries (average 22.2/100,000, range between 0.2 and 74.7/100,000). Any thoughts on them?


https://www.CDC.gov/std/stats17/gonorrhea.htm


https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/gonorrhoea-annual-epidemiological-report-2017.pdf

Tell me something I don’t know. My great grandmother underwent the abhorrent torture of female genital mutilation. Perhaps that’s melodramatic too. I have friends who endured similar barbarity as well. My ex girlfriend escaped the knifing  hands in her village. I’m not naive or oblivious as to exactly what happens to those young girls. I’ll spare you the details. Nonetheless, we were discussing male circumcision and the inherent benefits or lack thereof. 

2 hours ago, 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? 

I wish had the wisdom to put in my two cents but I think it's always the woman's choice after serious discussion with the father and hopefully educated, wise friends or group. 

2 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

I totally like how you argue your points and I will willingly accept your points of view as being valid but different from mine. 

It's just my own hang up, I can't stand anyone being in pain either physically or emotionally. I understand it's an evolutionary process psychologically but severe mind conditioning from compromised educated parents, tend to leave you scarred. They always stood up to any impositions inflicted upon anyone. 

I respect your position. 

Likewise, I respect your position irrespective of our divergent views. We can have nuanced discourse and disagree without being disagreeable ?

2 hours ago, cynical-RN said:

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.

Could you link to the multitude of studies that indicate this? Are you speaking of the trials carried out in several countries in Africa? They were hardly without flaws. Do you have any well-designed RCTs from any other continents? You didn’t comment on the statistics I linked regarding gonorrhea in the U.S. and in Europe. The stats on chlamydia are also lower in Europe than in the U.S. Why do you think that is if male circumcision is such a great protection against STDs? 
 


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345479/

32 minutes ago, macawake said:

Could you link to the multitude of studies that indicate this? Are you speaking of the trials carried out in several countries in Africa? They were hardly without flaws. Do you have any well-designed RCTs from any other continents? You didn’t comment on the statistics I linked regarding gonorrhea in the U.S. and in Europe. The stats on chlamydia are also lower in Europe than in the U.S. Why do you think that is if male circumcision is such a great protection against STDs? 
 


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345479/

Before I get to the articles, lemme address the fallacy within your last question. I never said that male circumcision is a form of “great protection” against STDs. I said there are studies that have demonstrated correlation between uncircumcised men and a higher incidence of contracting STDs in contrast to circumcised men. Correlation not causation. Pay attention. 

2 hours ago, macawake said:

Could you link to the multitude of studies that indicate this? Are you speaking of the trials carried out in several countries in Africa? They were hardly without flaws. Do you have any well-designed RCTs from any other continents? You didn’t comment on the statistics I linked regarding gonorrhea in the U.S. and in Europe. The stats on chlamydia are also lower in Europe than in the U.S. Why do you think that is if male circumcision is such a great protection against STDs? 
 


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345479/

Do you remember which studies and the countries in Africa? Africa is a continent of 55 countries, unless you are disputing all of them and/or insinuating that valid studies cannot be conducted there. Out of curiosity, do you typically request studies from other continents (which I plan to provide) when reviewing evidence or just in this particular case? Are you suggesting that all studies, conducted by disparate scientists in several African nations are all flawed? Do you want me to exclude all African studies? You might want to check your own biases. Nonetheless, review the following evidence, referenced below and offer rebuttals based on evidence and facts, not diatribe. 

1. Here's a synopsis of the American Association of Pediatrics has conclusions based on multiple studies. They indubitably support circumcisions for a variety of reasons listed on the reference below.

Reference

American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012 Sep;130(3):e756-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1990. Epub 2012 Aug 27. 

2. Here is another systematic review that concluded the opposition of male circumcision is based on low quality evidence

Morris BJ, Moreton S, Krieger JN. Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2019 Nov;12(4):263-290. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12361. Epub 2019 Sep 8. PMID: 31496128; PMCID: PMC6899915.

3. Here is a RCT that concluded "In addition to decreasing the incidence of HIV infection, male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HSV-2 infection and the prevalence of HPV infection, findings that underscore the potential public health benefits of the procedure."

Reference

Tobian AA, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, Kigozi G, Gravitt PE, Laeyendecker O, Charvat B, Ssempijja V, Riedesel M, Oliver AE, Nowak RG, Moulton LH, Chen MZ, Reynolds SJ, Wawer MJ, Gray RH. Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. N Engl J Med. 2009

 

8 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Do you remember which studies and the countries in Africa? Africa is a continent of 55 countries, unless you are disputing all of them and/or insinuating that valid studies cannot be conducted there. Out of curiosity, do you typically request studies from other continents (which I plan to do) when reviewing evidence or just in this particular case? Are you suggesting that all studies, conducted by disparate scientists in several African nations are all flawed? Do you want me to exclude all African studies? You might want to check your own biases. 

1. Here's a synopsis of the American Association of Pediatrics has concluded based on multiple studies. They indubitably support circumcisions for a variety of reasons listed on the reference below. Nonetheless, review the following evidence referenced below and offer rebuttals based on evidence and facts, not diatribe. 

American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012 Sep;130(3):e756-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1990. Epub 2012 Aug 27. 

* I would explore those studies re are they being paid for the procedure and has it affected their conclusions? Also, invalidating those conclusions, does it imply previous procedures were unnecessary? Will there be any legal complications? 

8 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

2. Here is another systematic review that concluded the opposition of male circumcision is based on low quality evidence

Morris BJ, Moreton S, Krieger JN. Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2019 Nov;12(4):263-290. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12361. Epub 2019 Sep 8. PMID: 31496128; PMCID: PMC6899915.

3. Here is a RCT that concluded "In addition to decreasing the incidence of HIV infection, male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HSV-2 infection and the prevalence of HPV infection, findings that underscore the potential public health benefits of the procedure."

Reference

Tobian AA, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, Kigozi G, Gravitt PE, Laeyendecker O, Charvat B, Ssempijja V, Riedesel M, Oliver AE, Nowak RG, Moulton LH, Chen MZ, Reynolds SJ, Wawer MJ, Gray RH. Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. N Engl J Med. 2009

 

I would consider which countries were involved, previous rates of infections, AND how many variables were unaccounted for? 

Who sponsored the studies, motives of the conclusions AND how many variables were unaccounted for? 

Notice the theme running through my comments? Variables?