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
3 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:Your analogy is irrational. Wrong site amputation is an error, circumcision is purposefully done, not mistakenly. Therefore, your inference is illogical.
What’s understood need not be repeated, but I’ll make it more concise. Male circumcision is not a problem, female mutilation is a problem.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."
You used straw man logical fallacy to misrepresent my analogy. I pointed out that from the perspective of a patient losing a foot or a leg is equally detrimental but one could argue that the losing a leg is more detrimental. Losing any amount of sensationis wrong. Btw most women who have undergone infibulation report being able to achieve orgasm. Do some research.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515316994
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26827253/
Bottom line all genital mutilation is wrong. No matter what an imam, rabbi, or old testament say. The supposed research supporting the support of unnecessary genital surgery is wrong.
7 minutes ago, Psychnursehopeful said:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."
You used straw man logical fallacy to misrepresent my analogy. I pointed out that from the perspective of a patient losing a foot or a leg is equally detrimental but one could argue that the losing a leg is more detrimental. Losing any amount of sensationis wrong. Btw most women who have undergone infibulation report being able to achieve orgasm. Do some research.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515316994
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26827253/
Bottom line all genital mutilation is wrong. No matter what an imam, rabbi, or old testament say. The supposed research supporting the support of unnecessary genital surgery is wrong.
Non sequitir, that’s the precise fallacy you’re demonstrating in your illogical conclusions.
I’m irreligious and therefore do not subscribe to any of the implicit dogmas you’re indicating.
14 minutes ago, Psychnursehopeful said:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."
You used straw man logical fallacy to misrepresent my analogy. I pointed out that from the perspective of a patient losing a foot or a leg is equally detrimental but one could argue that the losing a leg is more detrimental. Losing any amount of sensationis wrong. Btw most women who have undergone infibulation report being able to achieve orgasm. Do some research.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515316994
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26827253/
Bottom line all genital mutilation is wrong. No matter what an imam, rabbi, or old testament say. The supposed research supporting the support of unnecessary genital surgery is wrong.
I don't know how much simpler I can break down what I'm saying, but here goes. Female circumcision is barbaric, it is wrong, male circumcision is hardly comparable, I have seen several circumcisions, it is not barbaric. Is it wrong? Well I don't know, and to be hones I could care less, all I said was that I though foreskin was gross, I'm sorry that upset you, next time I'll keep my foreskin to myself and not say anything.
9 minutes ago, TheMoonisMyLantern said:I don't know how much simpler I can break down what I'm saying, but here goes. Female circumcision is barbaric, it is wrong, male circumcision is hardly comparable, I have seen several circumcisions, it is not barbaric. Is it wrong? Well I don't know, and to be hones I could care less, all I said was that I though foreskin was gross, I'm sorry that upset you, next time I'll keep my foreskin to myself and not say anything.
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.
19 hours ago, cynical-RN said:Pay attention.
16 hours ago, cynical-RN said:Sigh!
18 hours 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 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.
Perhaps it’s just the internet where tone can be hard to discern, but I perceive the way you reply to me as hectoring. You’re issuing ordes as if you you were my CO.
I haven’t forcefully and bitterly attacked anything so your use of the word diatribe is incorrect. I’ve only asked you questions and asked if you could provide links to sources since you did make the claim that a ”multitude of studies” exist that indicate that uncircumcised men have a higher incidence of contracting STDs. The reason I asked you to provide the links was because I haven’t found a single well-designed RCT that supports this.
No I don’t think there’s a higher percentage of flawed study designs in trials carried out somewhere on the African continent as opposed to on any other random continent.
The reason I asked of you had links to RCTs closer to home was because generalizability of a study result from one continent to another could possibly be problematic. Since I had no way of knowing which studies you had in mind, because you chose not to mention what the ”multitude of studies” consisted of, I was looking for clarification.
1 hour ago, Psychnursehopeful said:If these anatomical structures evolved for function why remove them? Purely a religious and cultural norm.
I completely agree.
Surgically removing healthy body parts makes no sense to me. But if an informed and consenting adult wanted to do it, that would be one thing. A child on the other hand, who can’t legally consent, should in my opinion be allowed to have their body intact until they are old enough to decide what they want, or don’t want.
I’m Scandinavian but I have lived in the U.S. and in other parts of the world as well. What I did notice in the U.S. was that many people, both men and women, have been culturally conditioned to view a natural member as something ugly or unclean that needs to be fixed. Most people frown on the act of surgically removing parts of female genitalia, but it’s okay to do it to boys? As nurses we advocate for patients’ autonomy and integrity. I think children have a right to that as well.
I’ve noticed some really emotional and defensive reactions in this thread, when one dares to question the ratinonale behind male circumcision. It appears to be a sensitive topic.
21 minutes ago, macawake said:Perhaps it’s just the internet where tone can be hard to discern, but I perceive the way you reply to me as hectoring. You’re issuing ordes as if you you were my CO.
I haven’t forcefully and bitterly attacked anything so your use of the word diatribe is incorrect. I’ve only asked you questions and asked if you could provide links to sources since you did make the claim that a ”multitude of studies” exist that indicate that uncircumcised men have a higher incidence of contracting STDs. The reason I asked you to provide the links was because I haven’t found a single well-designed RCT that supports this.
No I don’t think there’s a higher percentage of flawed study designs in trials carried out somewhere on the African continent as opposed to on any other random continent.
The reason I asked of you had links to RCTs closer to home was because generalizability of a study result from one continent to another could possibly be problematic. Since I had no way of knowing which studies you had in mind, because you chose not to mention what the ”multitude of studies” consisted of, I was looking for clarification.
I think I highlighted exactly where I thought your retort was in fact diatribe. Feel free to go back to the exact point where I noted that. You dismissed an explanation with the trite remark "psychological defense mechanism". Nonetheless, as you wrote, online tone is difficult to discern and therefore such matters can be quite subjective. The point is to be informative rather than persuasive, that is why I requested that you offer rebuttals based on the merit of the referenced studies, rather than diatribe, yet here we are discussing anything, but the studies. Sigh! I do have more RCTs and systematic reviews if need be. Please provide well-designed studies supporting the premise of your counterarguments/assertions. You provided an opinion piece, which would be at the bottom of the hierarchy of substantial evidence. I'm only interested in providing information, not persuasion and irrelevant feelings unrelated to the subject of contention.
10 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:Please provide well-designed studies supporting the premise of your counterarguments/assertions. You provided an opinion piece, which would be at the bottom of the hierarchy of substantial evidence. I'm only interested in providing information, not persuasion and irrelevant feelings unrelated to the subject of contention.
But that’s the thing. I haven’t made counter assertions. The studies that I had previously read on the topic had flaws so I was curious if you had located some better quality studies. I was asking for the studies that support the claim you made: ”there are a multitude of studies that indicate that uncircumcised men have a higher incidence of contracting STDs, especially HIV. That’s science that’s reproducible, reliable and validated”.
1 minute ago, macawake said:But that’s the thing. I haven’t made counter assertions. I was just asking for the studies that support the claim you made: ”there are a multitude of studies that indicate that uncircumcised men have a higher incidence of contracting STDs, especially HIV. That’s science that’s reproducible, reliable and validated”.
I provided an RCT, a systematic review of several studies, and the recommendation of the American Association of Pediatrics based on several studies. There are more in case those were insufficient to quench the thirst.
Circumcision is as innocuous as piercing ears. In rare cases, there are unforeseen complications. If one thinks it is an insidious procedure, provide the evidence. Why is 18 the magical number of when one should decide whether to get circumcised or not? Why not 21 similar to drinking alcohol? Why not 14? Yet a teenager <18 can safely make the choice to abort sans the consent of the parents? Interesting.
43 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:Circumcision is as innocuous as piercing ears. In rare cases, there are unforeseen complications. If one thinks it is an insidious procedure, provide the evidence. Why is 18 the magical number of when one should decide whether to get circumcised or not? Why not 21 similar to drinking alcohol? Why not 14? Yet a teenager <18 can safely make the choice to abort sans the consent of the parents? Interesting.
As a man, personally, I don't want anyone going near my appendage without my consent and for the purposes intended. And if you think circumcision is not insidious then maybe your sensitivity has diminished. Really, is there another part of your body that's more sensitive or important to you? Biologically, it is the reason for living. To reproduce.
I think logically re the hygiene you mentioned, that can only be as a result of culture or personal preference. And if a woman is unable to distinguish an unhygienic person, then maybe it's their preference. I can certainly say that it is not my place to judge anyone for their hygiene etiquette except that I won't be interacting with them except professionally if required. Because, I am EQUALLY sure that they have exactly the same right to judge me!
I think it should be a personal choice for the person re circumcision and not an aesthetic or religious thing. If I were uncircumcised and a woman found it distressing, I would celebrate my good luck to so quickly find out how superficial she is and move on. Equally if a woman finds out that her man wants her to have any cosmetic treatment whatsoever to satisfy his needs and not her choice, she has been given an excellent indication of his character and what the future holds.
Modern life has too many pitfalls to be negotiated to be kidnapped by trends and popularism. One should only do what's best for themselves.
Guest856929
486 Posts
Your analogy is irrational. Wrong site amputation is an error, circumcision is purposefully done, not mistakenly. Therefore, your inference is illogical.
What’s understood need not be repeated, but I’ll make it more concise. Male circumcision is not a problem, female mutilation is a problem.