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 Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
10 hours ago, OUxPhys said:

Because it is required in certain religions.

FGM/infibulation is required in certain religions/cultures as well.

Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.

FWIW, I was married for almost 2 decades to someone who was intact (I prefer "intact" to "uncircumcised" because it infers that the former is the norm, not the latter). He had no issues with hygiene, smegma, etc. He was taught as a young child how to clean his member. Just like girls are taught how to clean in their labial folds. 

Saying that intact memberes are naturally dirty is just laughable and ridiculous.

Specializes in Cardiology.
4 minutes ago, klone said:

FWIW, I was married for almost 2 decades to someone who was intact (I prefer "intact" to "uncircumcised" because it infers that the former is the norm, not the latter). He had no issues with hygiene, smegma, etc. He was taught as a young child how to clean his member. Just like girls are taught how to clean in their labial folds. 

Saying that intact memberes are naturally dirty is just laughable and ridiculous.

They are LOL. Circumsized does not have the issue of smegma. 

Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
4 hours ago, cynical-RN said:

If you have cheese-like drainage dripping out of your lady parts, I would urge you to seek medical help. We cannot give medical advice on this site. It’s against TOS..

Cheesecake dripping drainage? Oh please. You DO know what smegma is, right? And that women produce it in their labial folds as well?

Specializes in Cardiology.
8 minutes ago, klone said:

FGM/infibulation is required in certain religions/cultures as well.

Not quite the same. While many think male cirumsision is mutilation there is a difference between removing skin and actually removing an extremely sensitive nerve ending used in pleasure. That's the reason they are mutilated in the first place is it not?

Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.

Smegma is not "dirty". Smegma is a naturally occurring substance. And depending on how "tight" the circ is, there will still be smegma, even in a circed member.

 

3 minutes ago, OUxPhys said:

Not quite the same. While many think male cirumsision is mutilation there is a difference between removing skin and actually removing an extremely sensitive nerve ending used in pleasure. That's the reason they are mutilated in the first place is it not?

Also, my comment was in response to the comment that male circumcision is religious in nature (therefore okay, I guess?). So is FGM. So IMO, that argument does not make it okay. Or, if religion is a valid reason for circumcision, it should be a valid reason for FGM, should it not?

 

You don't think a foreskin is extremely sensitive and filled with nerve endings? Do you know the historical context of male circumcision in the US? It was done to prevent "self abuse"

 

1 hour ago, OUxPhys said:

Not quite the same. While many think male cirumsision is mutilation there is a difference between removing skin and actually removing an extremely sensitive nerve ending used in pleasure. That's the reason they are mutilated in the first place is it not?

Thank you. Some people can be so hellbent on conflating the obvious that reasoning with your dining table might be a better alternative. We understand their misunderstanding though ???

3 hours ago, klone said:

 Do you know the historical context of male circumcision in the US? It was done to prevent "self abuse"

Circumcision predates the conception of the U.S as a country by millennia. Therefore, the history of perversion in this country is irrelevant to the medical history of the procedure. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Dany102 said:

Say what, now? I am sorry cynical-RN, but I cannot tell if you are making a joke here or if you are actually serious.

Yes, smegma will eventually accumulated under the foreskin if uncleaned but it would take days (note the plural form) for it to show. I'm close to 50 years old and I cannot recall the last time I noticed any myself (I probably was pretty young). And, as it has been said before, good hygiene will take care of it. Even "not so good hygiene" won't be a problem in the short term. 

To use the better hygiene argument as a justification for rationalizing circumcision is just plain silly.

Dany 

If you read the entire thread, you will see that my assertions for circumcision are based on validated and reliable medical reasons. Hygiene is a secondary benefit of the procedure. The fact that people are incessantly choosing to dwell on the complexities of smegma rather than arguing the merits of the studies I referenced lets me know all I need to know about some of the opposing posters' baseless premises for letting the loose skin hung low. Nonetheless, I respect those who choose to wear their hoodies, even during the humid Summer months, irrespective of my own reservations. 

Just wondering if anyone knows why did biology create the foreskin anyway? Must have served a purpose. Any ideas? 

18 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

Just wondering if anyone knows why did biology create the foreskin anyway? Must have served a purpose. Any ideas? 

Biologically, why do humans have pubic hair? Foreskin is just another unpleasant remnant of evolution devoid of significant use. At the minimum, it's more of a hygienic nuisance and medical hazard. 

11 minutes ago, cynical-RN said:

Biologically, why do humans have pubic hair? Foreskin is just another unpleasant remnant of evolution devoid of significant use. At the minimum, it's more of a hygienic nuisance and medical hazard. 

So by your logic, in evolutionary terms, we are going to lose our pubic hair, foreskin eventually? What about hair on the head, armpits etc?