Female Genital Mutilation at Cornell University

[Zed]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv ... university

Interesting excerpts:

While the whole world was debating the American Academy of Pediatrics' position on "female genital cutting"—the AAP was against it before they were for it, and now, after an outcry, they're against it again—Alice Dreger and Ellen Feder have been raising the alarm about "medical research" currently being conducted at Cornell University. A pediatric urologist at Cornell—Dix Poppas—has been operating on little girls with what he judges to be oversized clitorises, cutting away important clitoral tissues, and then stitching the glans to what remains of the shaft. Poppas claims that, unlike past clitoral-reduction procedures, his procedure is "nerve sparing."

Indeed, when a colleague first alerted us to these follow-up exams—which involve Poppas stimulating the girls’ clitorises with vibrators while the girls, aged six and older, are conscious—we were so stunned that we did not believe it until we looked up his publications ourselves.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And this is why laws against female genital mutilaton should never include exceptions for anyone under the age of 21. Jesus. There's nothing else to say, really, except that the parents who let this happen to their daughters should be punished and the children taken away. Anyone who authorizes surgery on their child because a doctor says their clitoris is too large should not be raising that child. This probably wasn't illegal in the way it happened, though, so the best that can be hoped for is for public outrage to make it stop.

[Oskuro]

Sidenote: Who wants to bet the part that will really cause discomfort to many "concerned" people will be where the doctor uses a vibrator on the girls?

[LadyTevar]

Sidenote: Who wants to bet the part that will really cause discomfort to many "concerned" people will be where the doctor uses a vibrator on the girls?

I know that's where I really got sick.
Who is he to decide what an 'oversized clit' is? A Doctor?
Right, like I don't see the common fuck-ups doctors make while filling out a simple DEATH CERTIFICATE every day. I've seen trolls on here with better spelling skills, not to mention they at least remember to sign their name.

[Zed]

Sidenote: Who wants to bet the part that will really cause discomfort to many "concerned" people will be where the doctor uses a vibrator on the girls?

Discomfort? How would you feel if you'd been sexually stimulated every year by a doctor without your consent?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Who is he to decide what an 'oversized clit' is? A Doctor?

That is the part that got to me.

Now I'm gay, so I don't exactly have much experience here, but is there Any possible medical problem you could receive from an 'above average' clitoris? Reading the article it sounds like some Doctor just decided females shouldn't have large clitoris, thats about all I can get from this.

Reading stories like this makes me think of the Foreskin mutilation also happening to kids below the age of consent. There is no medical reason to chop off someone's foreskin unless it is overly tight and prevents the penis from fully emerging.

[Raw Shark]

Now I'm gay, so I don't exactly have much experience here, but is there Any possible medical problem you could receive from an 'above average' clitoris? Reading the article it sounds like some Doctor just decided females shouldn't have large clitoris, thats about all I can get from this.

If I may step in and offer my modest amount of anecdotal experience: I have never met a girl with a huge clitoris that had to see a doctor about it (and for that matter, who did not achieve orgasm very easily and generally seem to enjoy her... condition). One was embarrassed enough about it to mention it before I saw it because some douchebag made a "shemale" joke in high school that she found humiliating, but medically-speaking it seems about as benign as having a big penis...

[Qwerty 42]

Now I'm gay, so I don't exactly have much experience here, but is there Any possible medical problem you could receive from an 'above average' clitoris? Reading the article it sounds like some Doctor just decided females shouldn't have large clitoris, thats about all I can get from this.

If I may step in and offer my modest amount of anecdotal experience: I have never met a girl with a huge clitoris that had to see a doctor about it (and for that matter, who did not achieve orgasm very easily and generally seem to enjoy her... condition). One was embarrassed enough about it to mention it before I saw it because some douchebag made a "shemale" joke in high school that she found humiliating, but medically-speaking it seems about as benign as having a big penis...

And yet, fascinatingly, no one is advocating for penis reduction surgeries. This is all an abhorrent case of misogyny.

[Serafina]

IIRC, there was a (relatively small, read: hardly medially covered) scandal in Germany where similar operations were conducted on a large scale - basically with the justification that that a large clitoris represents an intersex-syndrome and that this could be "fixed" by mutilating female gentialia.
This was of course readily done in case of actual intersex anatomy, but also in case of anatomically normal (just a bit bigger) female gentialia. Unfortunately, only the latter got any kind of media attention, and a large effort by intersexed people had to be made to stop the former.

In this case - different justification, same horrible thing.

[Oskuro]

My point is actually that the sexual implications of stimulating the clitoris to see if the nerves have been correctly reattached will cause more of a disturbance than the doctor deciding to cut up a child's clitoris for being "too big" in the first place.

As an aside, this situation is fucked up, but if there is a medical necessity to apply a vibrator to a clitoris to see if there's been damage, getting upset over it is out of place. Say you have to test it after the child has had an accident and required reconstructive surgery, or needed a transplant. The important bit here is the doctor deciding to cut, not the vibrator.

[Zed]

There is no need to see if it has been damaged: if it's been damaged, it can't be repaired. The follow-up here is solely to investigate whether the initial cutting was effective, and is hence not in the best interests of the child - to the contrary, it is likely traumatizing.

[Ritterin Sophia]

And yet, fascinatingly, no one is advocating for penis reduction surgeries. This is all an abhorrent case of misogyny.

I'm sorry but before you decided it was misogyny did you factor circumcision into the equation?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

And yet, fascinatingly, no one is advocating for penis reduction surgeries. This is all an abhorrent case of misogyny.

I'm sorry but before you decided it was misogyny did you factor circumcision into the equation?

Are circumcisions given because the parents are afraid the child will turn out to be gay, or intersexed, or have too much of a sex-drive without it, or any of the other reasons given for the clitoral reduction?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully against circumcision as well, but these aren't really comparable situations. Circumcisions are given on the basis of ingrained religious tradition occasionally disguised as hygiene reasons, but never outright sexual. Clitoral reduction? Sometimes religious, but as pointed out, this is obviously being done for sexual reasons.

A simple way to tell the difference: Are circumcision patients test-stimulated by their doctors to make sure the nerves are still functioning?

[loomer]

And yet, fascinatingly, no one is advocating for penis reduction surgeries. This is all an abhorrent case of misogyny.

I'm sorry but before you decided it was misogyny did you factor circumcision into the equation?

There's a fairly fundamental difference, if I'm understanding the procedure right. Circumcision - fortunately something my parents didn't consent to - is just the foreskin - that'd be the clitoral hood, in terms of female equivalents.

This procedure is more like finding a guy with a nine inch wang and then cutting out three inches of shaft so he'll match the average.

[Broomstick]

Now I'm gay, so I don't exactly have much experience here, but is there Any possible medical problem you could receive from an 'above average' clitoris?

Nope.

Although social stigma could occur.

Reading the article it sounds like some Doctor just decided females shouldn't have large clitoris, thats about all I can get from this.

Basically.

It's a huge issue with the intersex crowd - apparently there have been doctors who used an actual ruler - if the bit is of a certain size or larger the child is deemed "male" regardless of other factors, if under then "female" and the item is "trimmed" to accommodate that category. Then the doctors wondered why the resulting adults got pissed off at them when they grew up and discovered their genitals had been altered without consent.

You have to wonder about the mindset of a doctor who is so bothered by a larger than average clit that he feels compelled to cut some of it off.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Are circumcisions given because the parents are afraid the child will... have too much of a sex-drive without it, or any of the other reasons given for the clitoral reduction?

Yes, actually they are.

There's a fairly fundamental difference, if I'm understanding the procedure right. Circumcision - fortunately something my parents didn't consent to - is just the foreskin - that'd be the clitoral hood, in terms of female equivalents.

This procedure is more like finding a guy with a nine inch wang and then cutting out three inches of shaft so he'll match the average.

No it's not different, you also take off part of the glans.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not to mention even if less severe in degree, circumcision is a widespread, even nigh-universal practice, and represents a real medical injustice on a societal scale. This, while awful, is one crank and maybe a few more incidents that doesn't even compare to the epidemic of medically unnecessary circumcision.

[loomer]

There's a fairly fundamental difference, if I'm understanding the procedure right. Circumcision - fortunately something my parents didn't consent to - is just the foreskin - that'd be the clitoral hood, in terms of female equivalents.

This procedure is more like finding a guy with a nine inch wang and then cutting out three inches of shaft so he'll match the average.

No it's not different, you also take off part of the glans.

What part of the glans is removed in a proper circumcision? The definition of the procedure is the removal of the foreskin, not 'the foreskin and part of the glans', or in female contexts clitoridectomy. I will also note that if it's removing part of the shaft then the surgeon has seriously fucked up, meaning there is a difference because that is the major component of this procedure!

And to clarify, no, I'm not pro-circumcision, I agree it's a barbaric practice, but I'm arguing that this is not functionally identical to male circumcision.

[Broomstick]

Not to mention even if less severe in degree, circumcision is a widespread, even nigh-universal practice, and represents a real medical injustice on a societal scale. This, while awful, is one crank and maybe a few more incidents that doesn't even compare to the epidemic of medically unnecessary circumcision.

Right, because there's no difference between removing a foreskin and removing half the penis shaft - seriously, that's the sort of thing you're talking about with "clitoral reduction". It's not "circumcision" (which is bad enough enough) it's cutting off a significant percentage of an organ. It's as if the maximum acceptable length of an infant penis was declared to be X and anything beyond X in length, no matter how much or little, was simply lopped off.

Again, that is not to belittle circumcision, but it's stupid to fail to recognize there are degrees of genital mutilation.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not to mention even if less severe in degree, circumcision is a widespread, even nigh-universal practice, and represents a real medical injustice on a societal scale. This, while awful, is one crank and maybe a few more incidents that doesn't even compare to the epidemic of medically unnecessary circumcision.

Right, because there's no difference between removing a foreskin and removing half the penis shaft - seriously, that's the sort of thing you're talking about with "clitoral reduction". It's not "circumcision" (which is bad enough enough) it's cutting off a significant percentage of an organ. It's as if the maximum acceptable length of an infant penis was declared to be X and anything beyond X in length, no matter how much or little, was simply lopped off.

Again, that is not to belittle circumcision, but it's stupid to fail to recognize there are degrees of genital mutilation.

Yeah, and there are degrees of prevalence as well. How common are these incidents compared to circumcision?

[Broomstick]

I don't have exact numbers, but the Intersex Society of North America reports that at birth between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 1500 babies have anomalous genitals at birth. Assume half are female. Now, not all of those affected girls will have enlarged clitorises, but it's one of the more common anomalies. At institutions where "trimming" has been standard operating procedure (and such have been known over the years) this will be done almost automatically. Up through the 1970's it might even have been done without asking the parents. These days, it may or may not be presented as an "emergency" situation In any case, there are thousands of women walking around these days who have had part of their clitoris chopped off by modern western medicine ranging from infants to women old enough to be grandmothers.

It's not as visible as circumcision, and given the western hang-ups about sex and gender issues it's seldom spoken of and surrounded by immense shame in many cases.

My latest information on the stance of the American Acadmey of Pediatrics regarding intersex/clitoral enlargement, dating from 2000, is that "infants raised as girls will usually require clitoral reduction". Meaning "because it looks funny/is too large chop off however much of the most sexually sensitive portion of the kid's anatomy until it looks somewhat normal."

Is this as common as boys being circumcised? No - but it's a hell of a lot more common than people know about. I will also point out that there actually ARE some medical situations where circumcision is justified. There are NONE for enlarged clitoris. Other than making other people comfortable with an individual's anatomy that is otherwise perfectly functional.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I agree, it certainly should not be done in infancy, but only as need presents itself for social or personal reasons with age. However, I do think we need to be realistic and realize a great many women probably would willfully request such a procedure even late, for fear of ostracization or rejection by the opposite sex, and personal humiliation.

Still, I would like you to provide some evidence of this being rather common or customary, and de rigueur at some institutions, with something besides ex cathedra statements.

[Broomstick]

I agree, it certainly should not be done in infancy, but only as need presents itself for social or personal reasons with age. However, I do think we need to be realistic and realize a great many women probably would willfully request such a procedure even late, for fear of ostracization or rejection by the opposite sex, and personal humiliation.

Like everyone else here, I fully support the right of an ADULT to make such a decision about his or her body. There are even adult women who voluntarily undergo full pharonic female circumcision in adulthood, crazy as that sounds to me (it ranks right alongside men who opt for complete elimination of their genitals as far as I'm concerned). The key, however, is that such a person is an ADULT.

And while some women would, yes, opt for clitoral reduction a lot never would - we know this because there are some excellent testimonials from adult women who have overly large clitorises who have not had them reduced.

The point is that it is up to the woman in question whether or not a large clitoris is a problem or not, not doctors hovering around a newborn.

Still, I would like you to provide some evidence of this being rather common or customary, and de rigueur at some institutions, with something besides ex cathedra statements.

What, the American Academy of Pediatrics isn't good enough for you? They establish the guidelines for pediatric care in the US. They certainly seem to think it's OK and should be done in a lot of cases.

In the 1950's Johns Hopkins under John Mooney (whose name is reviled among many these days) pioneered the "concealment-centered" model of treatment where infants were rushed into surgery to "normalize" their genitals and then their true medical history and name of their condition kept secret from them, ideally for life, despite the fact that some intersex conditions, aside from the genital and sex issue, can have life threatening complications that can be screened for IF you know the risk is there! In other words, keeping their intersex condition secret was rated more important than preventing later a later health crisis! Patients and their guardians were denied access to their complete medical records.

This became the standard treatment model in the US. ONLY since the 1990's has this been changing at all, and that only slowly and in only a few institutions. It's like asking me to prove that GM was a major car producer in the US during the 20th Century. I'm sorry if you don't believe that doctors where cutting up the genitals that didn't meet their aesthetic standards for the past half century or so, but that's the actual case.

As I have to get ready for work and I'll be away from computer access until Sunday perhaps someone else can supply more detailed information before my return. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I agree, it certainly should not be done in infancy, but only as need presents itself for social or personal reasons with age. However, I do think we need to be realistic and realize a great many women probably would willfully request such a procedure even late, for fear of ostracization or rejection by the opposite sex, and personal humiliation.

Like everyone else here, I fully support the right of an ADULT to make such a decision about his or her body. There are even adult women who voluntarily undergo full pharonic female circumcision in adulthood, crazy as that sounds to me (it ranks right alongside men who opt for complete elimination of their genitals as far as I'm concerned). The key, however, is that such a person is an ADULT.

And while some women would, yes, opt for clitoral reduction a lot never would - we know this because there are some excellent testimonials from adult women who have overly large clitorises who have not had them reduced.

The point is that it is up to the woman in question whether or not a large clitoris is a problem or not, not doctors hovering around a newborn.

There is no disagreement on this point.

Still, I would like you to provide some evidence of this being rather common or customary, and de rigueur at some institutions, with something besides ex cathedra statements.

What, the American Academy of Pediatrics isn't good enough for you? They establish the guidelines for pediatric care in the US. They certainly seem to think it's OK and should be done in a lot of cases.

I am certainly not obligated to provide your citations for you. The least you could do is provide a link. Simply alleging the existence of corroboration in text does not qualify as supporting your assertions. Please cite academic/professional sources directly, please.

In the 1950's Johns Hopkins under John Mooney (whose name is reviled among many these days) pioneered the "concealment-centered" model of treatment where infants were rushed into surgery to "normalize" their genitals and then their true medical history and name of their condition kept secret from them, ideally for life, despite the fact that some intersex conditions, aside from the genital and sex issue, can have life threatening complications that can be screened for IF you know the risk is there! In other words, keeping their intersex condition secret was rated more important than preventing later a later health crisis! Patients and their guardians were denied access to their complete medical records.

This is a single physician, and I am familiar with his unfortunate patients. But this discussion was explicitly a discussion of prevalence, and therefore this does not establish anything.

This became the standard treatment model in the US. ONLY since the 1990's has this been changing at all, and that only slowly and in only a few institutions. It's like asking me to prove that GM was a major car producer in the US during the 20th Century. I'm sorry if you don't believe that doctors where cutting up the genitals that didn't meet their aesthetic standards for the past half century or so, but that's the actual case.

As I have to get ready for work and I'll be away from computer access until Sunday perhaps someone else can supply more detailed information before my return. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait.

Alright, well, I would like, y'know, a link or citation of some kind, rather than just taking people's word for it that the prevalence of this compares at all to circumcision (hard to imagine even in principle since intersexed people are an extremely small proportion of the population relative to...well, all infant males).

You also moved the goalpost from sexual bigotry against normal but "large clitoris" women to (by your own account) actually intersexed people who were treated in an unethical, non-consensual, pseudoscientific manner. You will need to adequate link these intersexed mistreatment claims to the original issue of sexually healthy "big clitoris" women. Again, it is a simple issue of relative prevalence. Even if the treatment is more invasive, less justified, and more depraved, if it is a niche issue which has a prevalence a thousand times lower than male circumcision, one may be justified in considering the latter a larger sexual mutilation issue (though that would not make the female medical sex abuse okay or not a problem, just not as pressing from a utilitarian perspective). Especially if one considers that as large differences in prevalence, the lethal and permanently disfiguring or disabling marginal risks of circumcision (such as infection, amputation, maiming, etc.) may approach the prevalence of the female genital mutiliation, making them broadly comparable even directly.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Now I'm gay, so I don't exactly have much experience here, but is there Any possible medical problem you could receive from an 'above average' clitoris? Reading the article it sounds like some Doctor just decided females shouldn't have large clitoris, thats about all I can get from this.

If I may step in and offer my modest amount of anecdotal experience: I have never met a girl with a huge clitoris that had to see a doctor about it (and for that matter, who did not achieve orgasm very easily and generally seem to enjoy her... condition). One was embarrassed enough about it to mention it before I saw it because some douchebag made a "shemale" joke in high school that she found humiliating, but medically-speaking it seems about as benign as having a big penis...

And yet, fascinatingly, no one is advocating for penis reduction surgeries. This is all an abhorrent case of misogyny.

A big part of the perception between a Males penis and a Woman’s clitoris is largely male biased in terms of how men view masculinity and femininity. Basically, from what I have observed of heterosexual men, an above average clitoris is views as "freakish" because it more closely resembles a male penis.

Rawsharks anecdote about someone he knows being called "shemale" and being mocked for having a large clitoris I think is a valid example of most men’s viewpoint. With that in context I can see a sort of social pressure on women that having a small clitoris is more "social acceptable" to other men.

It is a purely misogynistic and male centered viewpoint of course and the comparison between reducing an oversized clitoris and reducing an oversized Penis I think is a perfectly acceptable comparison. Really given the amount of added stimulation an enlarged clitoris would provide to a women, Heterosexual men should celebrate having a girlfriend with an 'above average' clitoris.