Because this needs to be said...
I'm sure quite a few of you have already seen the rants on your f-lists. No, not the SPN fanfic stuff. I'm talking about the total uproar some people are making over the ALLEGED "female genital mutilation" taking place at Cornell University.
Personally, I find it mind-boggling how many people are ONLY reading the ranty, non-scientific, highly-biased, slant-angled BLOG POSTS about this, and not reading the goddamned MEDICAL RESEARCH PAPER to see what was actually done! I've seen rant after rant linking to blog-post after blog-post like a line of dominos, but nobody is referencing the actual research paper. Nobody is linking it! Everyone is just screaming their heads off without even going back to the actual research paper.
Fandom, I'm disappointed in you. For all that so many of you are well-read individuals who seem willing to dig up source material, you're awfully quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream bloody murder about this. I'd guess that some of the people ranting don't have enough of a biomedical background to understand the research paper anyway, but for those of you who are able to untangle the med-speak, you owe it to yourself to read the actual source material.
READ IT: The actual published research paper. Until you read it, with comprehension, shut up. And stop "boosting the signal" of something you don't even understand. That makes you no better than Tea Partiers parroting Glenn Beck.
I have seen people call this research the following things:
Female genital mutilation, rape, sex abuse, child abuse, homophobia, trauma, sexual assault, and even torture.
To those of you who have BLINDLY SWALLOWED THIS LOAD OF BULLSHIT, how about doing some research before you jump to conclusions? Otherwise, you're blindly following propaganda, which is a bad thing, whether it's conservative or liberal propaganda. So let's dig into the issue a little bit, shall we?
Do you people know what this research is actually about? Do you UNDERSTAND that this procedure is NOT being done on "healthy little girls" whose only "problem" is that they have big clitorises? Do you understand what Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia is? (Probably not, so go here and read up before you say anything else.) Can you please wrap your heads around the idea that this is NOT about "slightly larger-than-normal" clits. These are girls whose clitorises are big enough AND MISSHAPEN so that they look like penises, and the REST of their genitals are also malformed. Labia may be fused together, blocking the opening to the vagina. Or they could be engorged, resembling testicle sacs. The entire genital structure is morphed, somewhere between male and female. Milder cases might not have any long-term problems, but for others, you're talking about a possible lifetime of sexual anguish and dysfunction.
In the paper, it mentions the lengths of these penis-like clitorises. The lengths don't seem very long, until you realize that these are the non-erect lengths of the PROTRUDING portion of the phallus on very small children, and some are almost equivalent to the penis lengths of boys that size.
The kids who are born with this condition start off in severely poor health due to endocrine system problems, and THOSE issues are treated immediately after birth. (Those problems can be life-threatening.) After the initial medical treatment for the life-threatening issues, parents decide how to proceed with the other issues based on the severity of malformation. Again, these are not "big clits." Go ahead and look up some pictures of people with this medical condition. Go on, do it. THAT'S what we're talking about here.
People should note that two of the researchers listed as authors of this research paper are women. Let's talk hypothetical for a moment. Maybe one of them was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Maybe she grew up with severe self-identity issues because she was a "girl with a penis" until finally having plastic surgery as a teenager, and then because of archaic surgical techniques, she was left with a clitoris that had almost no sensitivity. Maybe this is her chance to spare these girls from that fate. Consider that possibility. Just... chew on it for a while.
Oh! Almost forgot the male doctor who is being so horribly demonized as a rapist and child molester. Let's give a hypothetical example for him. Maybe his sister had this condition. Maybe his mother had this condition. Maybe his WIFE had this condition! Maybe one of them was subjected to a more archaic procedure that left them with nerve damage. Perhaps he has his own personal reasons that run very dear to his heart, and he's seriously trying to help these girls. Did any of you even start to consider those possibilities? I know that in medical research, a lot of people fall into certain fields by chance, but a lot of other researchers try to find cures and treatments for diseases that have impacted themselves or someone they love. Did you consider that? Maybe you should before blindly demonizing this guy.
Now, as for the "stimulation" part of this study... the age RANGE for this part was 6 to 24. My guess is that most of the patients were in the older part of that range, but regardless, here are a couple of points to note:
1. This is not something where the doctors use a "toy" vibrator and stimulate the girl to arousal. It's a small probe (the same type used to test neuropathy and other nerve damage issues), and the length of contact is more "Can you feel that? Okay."
2. HOWEVER, I don't think this was a good idea for a study anyway. A verbal survey of the girls who are at least teenagers ("Are you satisfied with your level of sensitivity?) should be sufficient, and then, if the girls OVER the age of 18 wanted to volunteer for testing, then they can volunteer themselves.
3. Still, I wouldn't call this rape, sex abuse, or any of those other accusations I've seen tossed around. Yes, the ethics committee should have screened this study more carefully, and no, I don't think the stimulation portion was necessary, but it's NOT RAPE.
Next medical issue: Capillary refill testing. Do you know what capillary refill testing is? Try this: Press down on one of your fingernails for a couple of seconds (not very hard) and then remove the pressure. Watch how the tissue underneath the nail changes color as blood refills the capillaries. The amount of time the refill takes indicates HEALTHY CIRCULATION. After any sort of surgery, it's an important test to make sure that a person is getting enough blood flow. It can be performed on any part of the body, not just the fingernail. It's painless. It's quick. It's not sexual assault.
Okay, what about you folks who are set on the idea that parents and doctors should wait until these kids are 18 years old before letting them get the surgery? I can understand that philosophy. I can also understand that some people would argue that if they fix it before the kids are old enough to remember, it spares them the psychological trauma. Those arguments will go back and forth endlessly, and I'm not going to get involved in that one.
Yes, some people who are physically intersex have embraced their identities. Some people who have ambiguous genitalia decide not to get cosmetic surgery as adults. And some of them grow up not really sure who they are. Some of them have severe body image issues. I say this as a queer person; I don't identify as either gender. And still, I recognize how traumatizing it might be for a young girl to grow up with malformed genitals (not "large clitoris"; I mean MALFORMED).
To compare this delicate medical procedure with FGM, rape, or torture is an insult to medical professionals, and shows a gross misunderstanding on the part of people perpetuating this terminology. To compare this with homophobia (because lesbians often have larger clitorises) is ALSO obnoxious, and as a fairly masculine queer person, I find it offensive that this medical procedure would be considered homophobic. (So all of you folks getting up in arms about homophobia on this one, DROP IT. It makes you sound ignorant.)
So, here's my opinion, summarized:
1. I do not agree with physically testing nerve sensitivity on patients under the age of 16 for research purposes. (I think a 16-year old can consent. Many teenagers are sexually active, and they can make the decision of whether or not to participate in further research.)
2. This is NOT FGM.
3. This is not being perpetuated against women by men (an accusation I've seen on a couple of LJ's).
4. This is not rape.
5. This involves an actual medical condition, and as a biologist who works on a medical research campus who has been involved in the approval process of human research projects, I find the insults aimed at medical researchers to be off-putting at best, grotesquely insulting and libelous at worst.
6. While I do NOT completely agree that surgical intervention is the best or only approach to this condition, I believe that it's a legitimate approach, and is medically justifiable on a case-by-case basis.
7. My primary point is NOT about whether this procedure is a good one or not - it's all about the fact that too many people are jumping to conclusions, and really should read up before screaming about it.
Also, the brilliant and creative lizardspots posted about this issue, HERE. She's just about to finish up med school and has already been working directly with patients for a couple of years at this point, and quite sharp and fair-minded. Give her a listen, ok?
That's all I've got. If you want to argue with me, read the actual research paper first. If I decide to lock horns with someone over this, it would have to be a well-considered argument. I agree - the decision of whether to surgically "correct" genital malformations is a very touchy subject. The severity of the malformation different case to case, and only some girls have severe deformities. I think the decision is extremely personal to the individual if older, and the family if it's a baby, and can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. I'm not in those shoes, and I wouldn't dare to judge those decisions either way. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
If you read the research paper itself and come to different conclusions from mine based on the facts, then I can fully respect that. That's the nature of debate in medical research, and there will ALWAYS be differing opinions. I welcome that discussion. There's a lot of gray area in this sort of thing, and that's why rational discourse is so important. However, if anyone wants to continue to scream that this medical procedure is rape, torture, FGM, or sexual abuse... back up your argument with medical science before you click "reply."
Personally, I find it mind-boggling how many people are ONLY reading the ranty, non-scientific, highly-biased, slant-angled BLOG POSTS about this, and not reading the goddamned MEDICAL RESEARCH PAPER to see what was actually done! I've seen rant after rant linking to blog-post after blog-post like a line of dominos, but nobody is referencing the actual research paper. Nobody is linking it! Everyone is just screaming their heads off without even going back to the actual research paper.
Fandom, I'm disappointed in you. For all that so many of you are well-read individuals who seem willing to dig up source material, you're awfully quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream bloody murder about this. I'd guess that some of the people ranting don't have enough of a biomedical background to understand the research paper anyway, but for those of you who are able to untangle the med-speak, you owe it to yourself to read the actual source material.
READ IT: The actual published research paper. Until you read it, with comprehension, shut up. And stop "boosting the signal" of something you don't even understand. That makes you no better than Tea Partiers parroting Glenn Beck.
I have seen people call this research the following things:
Female genital mutilation, rape, sex abuse, child abuse, homophobia, trauma, sexual assault, and even torture.
To those of you who have BLINDLY SWALLOWED THIS LOAD OF BULLSHIT, how about doing some research before you jump to conclusions? Otherwise, you're blindly following propaganda, which is a bad thing, whether it's conservative or liberal propaganda. So let's dig into the issue a little bit, shall we?
Do you people know what this research is actually about? Do you UNDERSTAND that this procedure is NOT being done on "healthy little girls" whose only "problem" is that they have big clitorises? Do you understand what Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia is? (Probably not, so go here and read up before you say anything else.) Can you please wrap your heads around the idea that this is NOT about "slightly larger-than-normal" clits. These are girls whose clitorises are big enough AND MISSHAPEN so that they look like penises, and the REST of their genitals are also malformed. Labia may be fused together, blocking the opening to the vagina. Or they could be engorged, resembling testicle sacs. The entire genital structure is morphed, somewhere between male and female. Milder cases might not have any long-term problems, but for others, you're talking about a possible lifetime of sexual anguish and dysfunction.
In the paper, it mentions the lengths of these penis-like clitorises. The lengths don't seem very long, until you realize that these are the non-erect lengths of the PROTRUDING portion of the phallus on very small children, and some are almost equivalent to the penis lengths of boys that size.
The kids who are born with this condition start off in severely poor health due to endocrine system problems, and THOSE issues are treated immediately after birth. (Those problems can be life-threatening.) After the initial medical treatment for the life-threatening issues, parents decide how to proceed with the other issues based on the severity of malformation. Again, these are not "big clits." Go ahead and look up some pictures of people with this medical condition. Go on, do it. THAT'S what we're talking about here.
People should note that two of the researchers listed as authors of this research paper are women. Let's talk hypothetical for a moment. Maybe one of them was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Maybe she grew up with severe self-identity issues because she was a "girl with a penis" until finally having plastic surgery as a teenager, and then because of archaic surgical techniques, she was left with a clitoris that had almost no sensitivity. Maybe this is her chance to spare these girls from that fate. Consider that possibility. Just... chew on it for a while.
Oh! Almost forgot the male doctor who is being so horribly demonized as a rapist and child molester. Let's give a hypothetical example for him. Maybe his sister had this condition. Maybe his mother had this condition. Maybe his WIFE had this condition! Maybe one of them was subjected to a more archaic procedure that left them with nerve damage. Perhaps he has his own personal reasons that run very dear to his heart, and he's seriously trying to help these girls. Did any of you even start to consider those possibilities? I know that in medical research, a lot of people fall into certain fields by chance, but a lot of other researchers try to find cures and treatments for diseases that have impacted themselves or someone they love. Did you consider that? Maybe you should before blindly demonizing this guy.
Now, as for the "stimulation" part of this study... the age RANGE for this part was 6 to 24. My guess is that most of the patients were in the older part of that range, but regardless, here are a couple of points to note:
1. This is not something where the doctors use a "toy" vibrator and stimulate the girl to arousal. It's a small probe (the same type used to test neuropathy and other nerve damage issues), and the length of contact is more "Can you feel that? Okay."
2. HOWEVER, I don't think this was a good idea for a study anyway. A verbal survey of the girls who are at least teenagers ("Are you satisfied with your level of sensitivity?) should be sufficient, and then, if the girls OVER the age of 18 wanted to volunteer for testing, then they can volunteer themselves.
3. Still, I wouldn't call this rape, sex abuse, or any of those other accusations I've seen tossed around. Yes, the ethics committee should have screened this study more carefully, and no, I don't think the stimulation portion was necessary, but it's NOT RAPE.
Next medical issue: Capillary refill testing. Do you know what capillary refill testing is? Try this: Press down on one of your fingernails for a couple of seconds (not very hard) and then remove the pressure. Watch how the tissue underneath the nail changes color as blood refills the capillaries. The amount of time the refill takes indicates HEALTHY CIRCULATION. After any sort of surgery, it's an important test to make sure that a person is getting enough blood flow. It can be performed on any part of the body, not just the fingernail. It's painless. It's quick. It's not sexual assault.
Okay, what about you folks who are set on the idea that parents and doctors should wait until these kids are 18 years old before letting them get the surgery? I can understand that philosophy. I can also understand that some people would argue that if they fix it before the kids are old enough to remember, it spares them the psychological trauma. Those arguments will go back and forth endlessly, and I'm not going to get involved in that one.
Yes, some people who are physically intersex have embraced their identities. Some people who have ambiguous genitalia decide not to get cosmetic surgery as adults. And some of them grow up not really sure who they are. Some of them have severe body image issues. I say this as a queer person; I don't identify as either gender. And still, I recognize how traumatizing it might be for a young girl to grow up with malformed genitals (not "large clitoris"; I mean MALFORMED).
To compare this delicate medical procedure with FGM, rape, or torture is an insult to medical professionals, and shows a gross misunderstanding on the part of people perpetuating this terminology. To compare this with homophobia (because lesbians often have larger clitorises) is ALSO obnoxious, and as a fairly masculine queer person, I find it offensive that this medical procedure would be considered homophobic. (So all of you folks getting up in arms about homophobia on this one, DROP IT. It makes you sound ignorant.)
So, here's my opinion, summarized:
1. I do not agree with physically testing nerve sensitivity on patients under the age of 16 for research purposes. (I think a 16-year old can consent. Many teenagers are sexually active, and they can make the decision of whether or not to participate in further research.)
2. This is NOT FGM.
3. This is not being perpetuated against women by men (an accusation I've seen on a couple of LJ's).
4. This is not rape.
5. This involves an actual medical condition, and as a biologist who works on a medical research campus who has been involved in the approval process of human research projects, I find the insults aimed at medical researchers to be off-putting at best, grotesquely insulting and libelous at worst.
6. While I do NOT completely agree that surgical intervention is the best or only approach to this condition, I believe that it's a legitimate approach, and is medically justifiable on a case-by-case basis.
7. My primary point is NOT about whether this procedure is a good one or not - it's all about the fact that too many people are jumping to conclusions, and really should read up before screaming about it.
Also, the brilliant and creative lizardspots posted about this issue, HERE. She's just about to finish up med school and has already been working directly with patients for a couple of years at this point, and quite sharp and fair-minded. Give her a listen, ok?
That's all I've got. If you want to argue with me, read the actual research paper first. If I decide to lock horns with someone over this, it would have to be a well-considered argument. I agree - the decision of whether to surgically "correct" genital malformations is a very touchy subject. The severity of the malformation different case to case, and only some girls have severe deformities. I think the decision is extremely personal to the individual if older, and the family if it's a baby, and can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. I'm not in those shoes, and I wouldn't dare to judge those decisions either way. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
If you read the research paper itself and come to different conclusions from mine based on the facts, then I can fully respect that. That's the nature of debate in medical research, and there will ALWAYS be differing opinions. I welcome that discussion. There's a lot of gray area in this sort of thing, and that's why rational discourse is so important. However, if anyone wants to continue to scream that this medical procedure is rape, torture, FGM, or sexual abuse... back up your argument with medical science before you click "reply."