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
7 minutes ago, JadedCPN said:You keep bringing these other topics in that are not the same and could have their own thread for debate.
And no, not like piercing ears at all as a child with a pierced ear could decide on their own (at whatever age that may be, again topic for another thread) to no longer have their ears pierced. You can’t undo a circumcision.
It's called analogies. They help foster understanding of the subject being discussed by comparison or illustration. Several analogies have been offered throughout the thread including wrong site amputation. I haven't seen you neighing about them. You choose to focus on what you want to fly your skirt.
10 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:One should only do what's best for themselves.
Indeed!
I was wondering just when circumcision would make its appearance in this tread. I guess it was bound to happen.
I understand AN is mostly U. S. - centric and, for reasons beyond me, it is still a common practice. I am from Canada and I can say it isn't as popular. In fact, Health Canada official position on this is that circumcision is no longer recommended. This is backed by the CMA, the CPA, and the CUA. The CUA reviewed their own guidelines to say they see little to no benefit to routine circumcision and what little there is, can be mitigate by other means (vaccination comes to mind).
So what it comes down to is cultural bias, religious beliefs and aesthetic reasons. Non of which, in my opinion, makes for particularly strong positions to argue in favour of it.
I am not circumcised and I consider the practice as abhorrent as any other form of genital mutilation. I can't get behind opposing genital mutilation without including routine make circumcision as well.
Not doing so is simple hypocrisy.
Dany
1 hour ago, macawake said: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”.
I think that it's very likely that those studies were flawed re uncircumcised men. Like you I have Scandinavian ancestors. Grandparents were Swedish and Danish, moved to the UK and parents are English and Scot/Irish, before moving to America. Haved lived in over five countries and being curious, noticed the cultural differences.
I think the religious practice is a result of disrespect and disregard for the people concerned. Certain Religions appears to be very hierarchical, instilling and promoting the trend to its followers. They are patriarchal and I think circumcision is somewhat like a uniform, for distinguishing features. It's much too coincidental that it's an Abrahamic thing.
All behaviors need justification or they will be modified or die out.
I am all for banning ALL surgery of genitals for children. No just for the intersex, or for females, but also for males. A male infant cannot consent to his genitals being permanently altered because the parents want it, or because of their religion (the child has no religion). It is cruel, unnecessary, and I am appalled that this is legal, and that people take money to hurt children like this.
On 1/28/2021 at 10:10 AM, cynical-RN said:Smegma on the other hand is produced by glands involuntarily.
Women produce lady partsl secretions. It is also involuntary. Nobody suggest mutilation to fix that "problem".
Men are perfectly capable to clean their intact memberes, the same way that everyone can brush their teeth, clean behind their ears, maintain their fingernails and toenails, clean their perianal area, etc. Should we start declawing babies, pulling the teeth of children, and cutting their ears off just in case they turn out to be dirty individuals?
3 hours ago, 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.
I find memberes without foreskin as disturbing as an eye with no eyelids, or a mouth with no lips.
Men get adhesions and scarring in their foreskin because in places where mutilating memberes is "normal", parents or intact children are advised to retract the foreskin when it is not ready to separate from the shaft. This damages the delicate mucosa inside.
People simply need to stop messing with the genitals of children.
15 minutes ago, MelodyNelson said:Women produce lady partsl secretions. It is also involuntary. Nobody suggest mutilation to fix that "problem".
Men are perfectly capable to clean their intact memberes, the same way that everyone can brush their teeth, clean behind their ears, maintain their fingernails and toenails, clean their perianal area, etc. Should we start declawing babies, pulling the teeth of children, and cutting their ears off just in case they turn out to be dirty individuals?
Melody just smoked any counter arguments IMO. I'd like to see someone argue with those biscuits!
If evidence supports the abandonment of male circumcision then by all means do so, just because I think foreskin is unpleasant doesn't mean that I think that EVERYONE should be circumcised.
Saying that male circumcision is "insidious", "cruel", is an absolute freaking joke. Cancer is insidious, dementia is cruel, losing a piece of skin that in MOST cases (there are no 100% in medicine) has no effect on FUNCTION is not. It may be unnatural, and it may even be unethical since babies can't consent, but let's keep perspective and abandon the melodramatic overtones.
9 minutes ago, TheMoonisMyLantern said:If evidence supports the abandonment of male circumcision then by all means do so, just because I think foreskin is unpleasant doesn't mean that I think that EVERYONE should be circumcised.
Saying that male circumcision is "insidious", "cruel", is an absolute freaking joke. Cancer is insidious, dementia is cruel, losing a piece of skin that in MOST cases (there are no 100% in medicine) has no effect on FUNCTION is not. It may be unnatural, and it may even be unethical since babies can't consent, but let's keep perspective and abandon the melodramatic overtones.
Mic Drop!
47 minutes ago, TheMoonisMyLantern said:If evidence supports the abandonment of male circumcision then by all means do so, just because I think foreskin is unpleasant doesn't mean that I think that EVERYONE should be circumcised.
Saying that male circumcision is "insidious", "cruel", is an absolute freaking joke. Cancer is insidious, dementia is cruel, losing a piece of skin that in MOST cases (there are no 100% in medicine) has no effect on FUNCTION is not. It may be unnatural, and it may even be unethical since babies can't consent, but let's keep perspective and abandon the melodramatic overtones.
I think we should all be circumspect about circumcision and embrace the circumstances re the circumference of the subject carefully, before it devolves into a circus and the circle of things becomes a circumstance we cannot circumnavigate away from circumspectly in a circumscribed manner ??????.
1 minute ago, Curious1997 said:I think we should all be circumspect about circumcision and and embrace the circumstances re the circumference of the subject carefully, before it devolves into a circus and the circle of things becomes a circumstance we cannot circumnavigate away from circumspectly in a circumscribed manner ??????.
We finally agree ?
JadedCPN, BSN, RN
1,476 Posts
You keep bringing these other topics in that are not the same and could have their own thread for debate.
And no, not like piercing ears at all as a child with a pierced ear could decide on their own (at whatever age that may be, again topic for another thread) to no longer have their ears pierced. You can’t undo a circumcision.
ETA your point regarding a teenager under the age of 18 making THEIR OWN choice to have an abortion, rather than it being forced upon them by their parents, supports more of the idea that a male should have the choice to have a circulation rather than have it forced upon them at birth.