IGM Link Round Up
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in regards to a study released via the The Journal of Urology: Nerve Sparing Ventral Clitoroplasty: Analysis of Clitoral Sensitivity and Viability which was a Cornell University study by Yang, Felsen, and Poppas.
There was an explosion of discussion that began at the Bioethics Forum in the post "Bad Vibrations" and continued outward throughout the internet.
PZ Meyers outlines one of the main thrusts of the ethical issues here:
Some parents freak out if their newborn is different, especially if the sex of their child isn't crystal clear, even if it is a difference as irrelevant as size of the clitoris. And they demand immediate cosmetic surgery, asking that the large clitoris get cut down to a size they want to call "normal". Seriously, I don't even know what the "normal" size is, or that it even matters.
...
And here's the scary thing: there are doctors who will happily oblige them, whisking young children off to the surgery to whittle their genitalia into a shape their parents will find more pleasing. The child, of course, is too young to have a say - but not too young to have their sex organs truncated.
That's what Dix Poppas has been doing, chopping up clitorises to meet some nonexistent esthetic ideal. This is unethical: it's mutilating children who are too young to give consent for entirely cosmetic purposes. If these kids were left alone to grow up, and then as adults they requested such surgery, then fine - the fact that it's done in kids as young as five is monstrous. It is a non-issue; five year old girls will not be judged on the size of their clitorises, and even adult women should not…but there goes Poppas, wielding his scalpel in the name of a particularly uninformed heteronormativity.
bird of paradox wrote a post that takes a look at the rather controversial reputation of Dreger, who is one of the people that brought this study to the wider attention of the web at large.
Kynn pointed out in this post and follow-up comments the cis-privlege inherent in a lot of this discussion-- namely that this is an intersex issue that many comments are overlooking (or a less charitable person might call forgetting on purpose).
An anonymous commenter in lizardspots' first post on the issue raises other concerns:
"In addition, having a large exposed clitoris can be very uncomfortable for a child, and if you consider the psychological ramifications of a young girl growing up and developing their gender identity when they have a half formed penis and scrotum.... well, you can see the indications for surgery right away. And particularly, the indication for surgery at as young an age as possible so that the child has no memory of it.
This right here? Is an example of your incredible cisprivilege, and I think you need to step back and take a look at what you're actually saying. It's incredibly offensive to the intersexed community, of which I am part of, and also why I am posting this anonymously, because I really don't feel that I should have to be outed to LJ at large to post this.
I support surgery that has to be done in order to help the child be normally functioning for their physical health, such as surgery to correct problems with the urethra. But to come out with this hogwash about how it's 'psychologically damaging' for children to grow up with genitalia that is not matching the stringent guidelines outlined in a medical textbook is disgusting and incredibly offensive.
Children should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want genital reconstructive surgery, and which gender identity they wish to align themselves with. While doctors may be right in some cases, in a large number they are not, particularly because they decide the child's gender identity largely based on the size of the cliterophallus. Most cases have nothing to do with the chromosomes of the child and everything to do with the heterocentric notion that the child, if allowed to be 'male' will have an unhealthy sexual life because his penis will not be able to pleasure a woman because it is too small.
It is far, far more traumatizing to be given a gender identity you do not want and to have your genitals hacked apart before you are really cognizant of them as an adult. Many, many intersexed could have had much happier lives with genitals closer to those that they really wanted, and happier childhoods without the pressure to conform to an applied gender identity that did not fit them. This also touches on transphobia, because many people cannot deal with the idea that a child should be free to choose what gender they ascribe to. Contrary to what may be a common belief, if a child is given guidance about the nature of their genitals, they'll deal with it pretty well. Children are really more flexible and strong than most people given them credit for.
I admit that this may or may not have anything to do with the study. I am not going to delve deeply into it because it is incredibly triggering to me to discuss genital reconstruction of infants with people I am not close to. But the language you use throughout your post, and the part I have highlighted are extremely hurtful and they do not fit with the sort of attitude that I would like to see from emerging physicians, especially those who express an interest with working with small children who may be forced to confront these sort of conditions.
It's better to champion the autonomy of these children as people than to mutilate them in order to make others, who should not need to concern themselves their others' genitals at all, more comfortable."
Dreamwidth user ephemere also has a side discussion in the post "Aropos of central limit theorems" on the problematic use of normal and its usage (especially in the social sciences) is not always neutral, uniform or made in good faith. There's also a pretty powerful observation how scientific work is never really done in a vacuum:
"Science is a social process; you cannot divorce this ongoing act from the society in which it takes place. From stern to stem, the character of society informs the science being done within it, and thus the beliefs prevailing in that society, the philosophies of the scientists, the history of the field -- they, too, may exert their own influences on the work. I don't believe any discipline can be done in a vacuum."