Pharyngula

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 17, 2010 7:22 PM

Doesn't Cornell Medical Center have an ethics committee? Why aren't they investigating this?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 7:36 PM

'Tis Himself, OM:

Doesn't Cornell Medical Center have an ethics committee? Why aren't they investigating this?

^This. What this man is doing is unconscionable; no doctor should be making this attainable to parents.

Posted by: SamB | June 17, 2010 7:43 PM

The problem is that very few people are aware of how much clitorii can vary, and all that other intersex stuff. It's rarely taught, if at all, in sex ed mostly everywhere in the world, so if they were to let a partner put their hand down their parts in their experimental, naive, teenage years, it could lead to a shock. Perchance even a perception of being an hermaphrodite. Which wouldn't be very helpful to the girls body image.

So whilst it is certainly barbaric and unacceptable, there is a bit of a justification in it - the threat of being perceived as a 'chick with a dick' would turn off quite a few guys, regardless of how unfounded an inaccurate it is, damaging self image in a way far more potent than anything surrounding circumcision of either sex. But of course, this justification exists purely because of the depth (or lack thereof) of most kinds of education. Teach that a larger than average clitoris is not uncommon, and that it doesn't really effect much, and that justification shrivels up and leaves the practice as, simply, barbaric and unacceptable.

Posted by: Legion | June 17, 2010 7:45 PM

Positively medieval, and the vibrator sessions reek of kiddie porn kink.

Posted by: loser-anda-user | June 17, 2010 7:53 PM

I was hoping you'd posted something about this. You're always one step ahead of me.

When I read this article I almost punched my laptop. This is sexual abuse. Plain and simple. This guy should go to jail for a very long time and be barred from ever practicing medicine again. This is the same thing as shortening little boys' penises.

Unfortunately, someone might've actually objected if he was doing that.

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 17, 2010 7:57 PM

SamB wrote:

So whilst it is certainly barbaric and unacceptable, there is a bit of a justification in it - the threat of being perceived as a 'chick with a dick' would turn off quite a few guys, regardless of how unfounded an inaccurate it is, damaging self image in a way far more potent than anything surrounding circumcision of either sex.

Seriously? I mean, really?

You think a teenaged boy running away while screaming, “Ewww! Gross!” is worse than taking a knife to the most sensitive part of the body in a way that causes permanent lifetime nerve damage, thereby causing all sorts of sexual dysfunction?

Why is it that whenever PZ posts a profoundly “what the FUCK” story that you’re sure can’t be topped, some asshole posts a comment with something even more insane? Is there some sort of asshole olympics going on I don’t know about?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | June 17, 2010 8:01 PM

@6

Teach that a larger than average clitoris is not uncommon...

About half of them are larger than average; not uncommon at all. Of course some folks think that all clitorii are above average.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | June 17, 2010 8:04 PM

seems to me that sex is scary for most people I found it hard to read about the post-op exams
the surgery did not seem so different to middle eastern and African FGM just "more skillful and subtle".
Sex is one of the most uncontrollable aspects of our lives. After all it is one of the primary functions of our live any way and takes up much of our time, thought, are we attractive etc. a lot of what we do is indirectly connected to sex which we have no control over.

Posted by: Andrew Hall | June 17, 2010 8:06 PM

I had no idea this was going on.

I officially have the heeby-jeebies.

http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/06/mormans-and-moral-blank-check.html

Posted by: Amsterstorm | June 17, 2010 8:08 PM

How does this even happen!?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 17, 2010 8:09 PM

FGM, not in the name of religion, but in the pursuit of the ideal of that which is considered to be the heteronormative concept of 'pretty'...

Our society is supremely messed up when it comes to ideals of female body morphology. How can a doctor (who one assumes has sworn the hypocratic oath with the whole 'first, do no harm' proviso) go along with this? If the parents have a problem with their child's supposedly 'ambiguous' genitals, then they need to have a long hard look at themselves and their knee-jerk bigotry. They should not go to the nearest surgeon and say;

"Break out the scapels, doc, there's a cuttin' to be done!"

And the surgeon should definately refuse to aquiesse to the parent's demands to mutilate their child in pursuit of their ideal of what their child's genitalia 'should' be.

PZ is right, there is a strong case for an ethics probe into Poppas even before we get to his penchant for applying vibrators to children, which on the face of it seems to be a straightforward example of child sexual abuse masquerading as medical treatment that deserves the strongest of legal sanctions.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 8:12 PM

Dianne:

Does the size of the clitoris at birth through age 5 even necessarily correspond with the adult size?

This was one of the first things I thought about - you're far from finished growing at 5 years old, you're barely started on that front!

Posted by: Jaycubed | June 17, 2010 8:17 PM

Sexually mutilating infants & children is horrible & abusive whether done to a boy or a girl.

The only reason for such acts are to degrade the sexuality of the victims and to please a perverted Deity who likes mutilated genitalia.

There is no medical purpose served by procedures such as circumcision that cannot be better served by teaching simple hygiene.

But, horror of horrors, that would mean acknowledging the need to regularly touch one's own genitals. That might lead to MASTURBATION! And we all know the Big Fairy hates masturbation . . . No Wait! There's absolutely NO mention of masturbation anywhere in the Big Fairy's instruction manual.

Posted by: Shirnkung | June 17, 2010 8:21 PM

Would somebody with an M.D. or PhD in a related field please review his stuff and contact the university at the link above if they feel the same way?
Being just “some guy from the internet” probably won't raise any eyebrows over there. If somebody who can "talk the talk" writes in it may spark the right people to have look.

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 17, 2010 8:33 PM

I’ve been expecting somebody to pony up an answer to PZ’s question at the top of the page, but nobody’s stepped up to the plate as of yet. So, might I suggest, the same answer as is often offered to women of less than canatalopian proportions is almost certainly appropriate: “More than a mouthful is just a waste.”

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: evergreenotter | June 17, 2010 8:42 PM

All genital surgeries on people under age 18 should be banned outside of acute medical necessity, like an anal-vaginal fissure.

And religion should not be an acceptable excuse for cutting on boy's genitals as it is now. Your religious rights stop when they permanent affect another person's body, full stop.

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 17, 2010 8:49 PM

His Noodly Appendage wrote:

But of course, the thousands of people hacking off bits of perfectly good newborn penis every day doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

Yes, because every Pharyngulite is unanimous in support male circumcision.

Jesus tittyfucking Mary motherliving Christ with a soldering iron, why is it impossible for so many of my fellow XY-chromosonal homo sapiens to understand that, yes, male circumcision is bad, but that what we’re discussing is an order of magnitude worse? And that there’s no more justification for threadjacking a discussion on horrific practices done to girls by steering the topic towards unpleasant things done to boys than there is for twisting a discussion about the horrors of the Gulf oil spill to your neighbor who lets his Chihuahua poop on your lawn?

Grow a pair, men, and get a sense of proportionality.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 8:52 PM

HNA:

But of course, the thousands of people hacking off bits of perfectly good newborn penis every day doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

I expect better than this from you. (I'm Sinister from elsewhere). Male Circumcision has been discussed, at length, numerous times here. Most of the people here have no use for it whatsoever, and oppose it. (Including me). That said, this discussion is about a specific physician doing specific surgeries, which seemed to have caused not one person to bat an eyelash in regard to ethical concerns.

Anything cogent to say about this particular situation?

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 8:53 PM

Shorter Ben Goren:

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. Cheers!

Just kidding, Ben. You are right on the money.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 17, 2010 9:04 PM

@His Noodly Appendage:

But of course, the thousands of people hacking off bits of perfectly good newborn penis every day doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

Please don't do this. Not only is it not true, but it's such a standard de-rail any time female genitals are raised that it's really irritating. Many Pharyngulites (me included) think little boys' appendages should be left as noodly as the day they were born.

Again, please don't.

@Daveau.

Thank you for saying "breasteses." I get uncomfortable if I go too many days without that word. I luvz it, precious.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 9:05 PM

That does not make what this doctor is doing okay

I never said it did, did I?

I'm saying, explicitly, that this team doesn't spend all their days apparently mutilating children.

I want to hear their side of it. That team has in fact made serious inroads in childhood urology issues requiring surgical intervention.

Posted by: richardrob | June 17, 2010 9:06 PM

Dianne, His Noodly Appendage, that is definitely a discussion worth having. In another thread.

Sam B, don't you love how people always read to the end of your comment and take it as a whole before responding.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 9:10 PM

richardrob:

Sam B, don't you love how people always read to the end of your comment and take it as a whole before responding.

I read his whole comment. It didn't detract from the nugget of stupid.

Posted by: skatje.myers | June 17, 2010 9:12 PM

you're postulating hypothetical trauma, while the initial surgery is DOCUMENTED trauma.

so, i suppose i can't speak on removing hideous benign lumps on children either. because of potential surgery risks, and my silly ideas of "they might get made fun of for having a huge lump on their face" is purely "hypothetical". :/

yes, the particular surgery under discussion is NOT the kind that comes under the category of intersex, just to be clear.

i only mentioned it because intersex was mentioned in the original post, and i wanted to make sure i was being clear.

Posted by: richardrob | June 17, 2010 9:14 PM

Don't you do it, Sam B!

Funny how a question mark can change a sentence.

Posted by: skatje.myers | June 17, 2010 9:14 PM

given the surgeon requires annual checkups to test for functionality, I'd say the surgeon himself considers there to be measurable risk involved.

i thought we were establishing that this guy is of dubious ethics on this regard? i'd be interested to know if surgeons who aren't into any funny business would require the same check-ups.

Posted by: Ströh | June 17, 2010 9:16 PM

As an MD-to-be my first thought (beyond the WT-phase) is that he probably has a justification for it. By that I don't mean a valid justification, but the only explanation for why he has been allowed to continue this far is that he can toss a believable-sounding explanation to those asking.

Factor in authority to that, and the undeniable grey area of cosmetic surgery, and you have an explanation of how he has managed to dodge the ethics board.

Cosmetic surgery on birth defects that are only debilitating to the appearance do (and should!) happen, but I think this is clearly a step too far. This isn't about birth defects - this is tailoring the appearance of children to a perceived "normal" state with unacceptable risks involved.

As for the vibrator, I'll give Poppas the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Post-op checkups for complications, even those that can be easily rectified, is justifiable. I doubt the vibrator in question is dildo - not even he can be that far off the crazy-scale.

Still, my verdict is that this has to stop and that Poppas is made to understand just how wrong he has been. Hopefully this is not straight-out child abuse, but rather severely misguided attempts at doing good, but if there are ulterior motives involved he should be facing criminal charges.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 9:18 PM

skatje.myers:

so, i suppose i can't speak on removing hideous benign lumps on children either. because of potential surgery risks, and my silly ideas of "they might get made fun of for having a huge lump on their face" is purely "hypothetical". :/

Your clitoris is not on your face. A 5 year old girl will not be in a situation of potential "eeuws!" in regard to her clitoris. This is a surgery that is being done for cosmetic reasons long before enough growth has taken place, in which case, as Dianne noted, what seemed to be an over-large clitoris can look perfectly "normal" sized.

If a girl grows to her teens and is unhappy with her clitoris, for whatever reason, she can discuss a desire for cosmetic surgery with her parents and physician at that time.

Posted by: skatje.myers | June 17, 2010 9:20 PM

really? are you sure? based on what?

i don't have a survey which asked respondents if they'd be cool if their girl had something that looked like a penis between their legs, but a fair bit of anecdotal evidence tells me that most guys don't see Chyna's ladyparts and think it's all well and good.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 9:20 PM

Your clitoris is not on your face.

If it were, I think then we might have basis for a supportable argument regarding the benefits of early childhood surgery...

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | June 17, 2010 9:24 PM

The man in the boat was “too big”
Like a branch where there should be a twig
So the folks found a quack
Who was willing to hack,
And they cut off her thingamajig!

Now, the girl is still loved, I suppose,
Though her mom and dad’s ignorance shows,
And it wouldn’t surprise,
If to show off her eyes
They decided to cut off her nose!

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 17, 2010 9:25 PM

skatje.myers blathered:

also, this is aside from intersex kids. with that degree of ambiguity, it should be made sure that they get to choose which gender they feel more like.

I see Ichthyic is already taking you to task for the rest of the bullshit you spewed, but I’d like to address this bit, too.

Assuming no harmful medical complications, WHY THE FUCK SHOULD KIDS BE FORCED INTO ELECTIVE COSMETIC GENITAL SURGERY?

I mean, really.

About the same time that you teach your kids not to expose themselves in public, you should also let them know that some people like to compare genitals. And, just as people will disagree as to whether or not somebody has a pretty face, people will disagree as to whether or not somebody has pretty genitals. When somebody thinks your genitals are ugly, give that as little consideration as when they think your face is ugly. And, whatever you do, don’t make fun of anybody else’s face or genitals.

That lesson should be taught to all children, heteronormative or otherwise. And those who aren’t hteronormative — for whatever reason — should also be told that, just like some people are really short or really tall or have really big or really small earlobes or whatever, they’ll find that their genitals are really <insert superlative> and that people, in about equal parts, will be grossed out, indifferent, and really attracted to them because of that. If they catch flack from somebody, shrug it off and find somebody who either likes that or doesn’t give a damn.

IF and only if it becomes a major psychological problem for the child that normal counseling can’t address, then it might be appropriate to offer cosmetic surgery as an option. But it really should only be the sort of thing you offer out of desperation.

And, yes, of course. If there are health-related complications that surgery is best suited to address, bring on the knife. But otherwise leave well enough alone.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: eeanm | June 17, 2010 9:28 PM

skatje.myers:
You're being awfully heteronormative. (I'm not an English or Women Studies major, but have enough friends who are to know what that means. :P) As Dan Savage points out, there's a decent chance that they will be lesbian and what boys think will be pretty irrelevant.

Anyways isn't our teen years full of hang-ups about this that or the other? Its natural but futile for parents to try to protect their kids from that. And in this case history has shown that they'll just feel resentful about being butchered, so it doesn't even work.

Posted by: skatje.myers | June 17, 2010 9:29 PM

Your clitoris is not on your face. A 5 year old girl will not be in a situation of potential "eeuws!" in regard to her clitoris.

you don't know children then. kids that young notice differences between boys and girls and get curious.

would you also be willing to support children getting forced nose jobs if their noses aren't straight?

no. this has to do with the degree of the issue. a severely over-sized clitoris tends to be a much more sensitive issue than a crooked nose. there's much more psychological identity/whatever issues at play with something like genitals. i'm not advocating making small little tweaks to make it "pretty". i'm more advocating potentially fixing it to look less like a penis.

also, regarding what people are mentioning about whether or not "over-sized" genitals in children/infants results in "over-sized" for adults: this is very interesting, and if it's true that size in kids doesn't reflect what it'll end up being, then i'd have to reverse what i said.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 17, 2010 9:31 PM

i'm more advocating potentially fixing it to look less like a penis.

So the menz like it, right?

Nice.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 9:33 PM

kids that young notice differences between boys and girls and get curious.

did you?

tell us a personal anecdote that's relevant.

i thought we were establishing that this guy is of dubious ethics on this regard?

sorry, I'm not seeing how mentioning that is relevant to the issue at hand?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 9:35 PM

a severely over-sized clitoris tends to be a much more sensitive issue than a crooked nose.

that would entirely depend on the community you live in.

are you SURE you can see the subjective nature of your argument?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 9:38 PM

OurDeadSelves:

So the menz like it, right?

Exactly. Can't be putting nonsense like self-esteem, individuality and confidence into girlses heads. Silly creatures all, which require sculpting.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 17, 2010 9:39 PM

if the case is so severe that a kid might feel "disfigured" somehow,

"If" and "might" are the problems with your argument. You have no way to predict how a woman will feel about her clit, no matter what size it is. Why not let her make the decision when she's a teen?

I'm sorry, but catering to what men "might" like or how a woman "might" feel is no reason to break out the scalpel.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 9:40 PM

i'm more advocating potentially fixing it to look less like a penis.

It seemed fairly clear we WEREN'T talking about intersex categories of surgery here, so this isn't what we are talking about.

regardless, you are still making a subjective argument here.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 17, 2010 9:42 PM

it's not futile in this case, i feel. if the case is so severe that a kid might feel "disfigured" somehow, i feel like it'd be worth trying to fix

Trying to see your point.

Failing.

If some one feels bad about their clit it damned sure shouldn't be an issue when they're not even legally sexually active!

WTF are you on?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 9:43 PM

a severely over-sized clitoris

We aren't talking about severely over-sized though, just what some parents don't consider "normal". Even in the case of what you might consider "severely" over-sized*, there's no reason to have surgery in early childhood.

*What you might consider "severely over-sized" wouldn't necessarily be considered the same way by the next person. That's the whole point - this is about ridiculous ideals, which have no standard to begin with.

Posted by: pteryxx | June 17, 2010 9:44 PM

"SanDeE*... your breasts feel weird."

"Oh, that's because they're real."

(from L.A. Story)

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 9:45 PM

first person to successfully raise a female with no insecurity issues wins a prize!

On that, I can't but agree.

It applies in the majority to both sexes, though, I think.

I can't recall ever meeting anyone who had absolutely NO insecurities.

Posted by: Dae | June 17, 2010 9:46 PM

skatje, you're missing the fundamental point that an infant or toddler can't give any kind of knowing consent to have her clitoris operated on and its function almost certainly impaired in at least some fashion (even if the nerves are all still intact, there's scar tissue to contend with). Even if there was relatively little risk - it would still be absolutely heinous.

Why? Because her large clitoris is not harming her. There is no medical reason to have it reduced, and the speculative psychological justification is B.S. because if it actually DOES cause a serious problem for her down the line when she has at least some awareness of sexuality, she can then give her informed consent to have the surgery. Chopping up genitalia on the basis that maybe, another kid will see it and be grossed out by it, and maybe she will be permanently traumatized by that reaction, a reaction which is endemic to childhood in some form, period, unless you live in an isolation chamber. There will always be something about a given kid that another kid will identify as different, and therefore "gross." If not her genitals, her nose, her boobs, her leg hair, her eyebrows, her butt... something. All children will have to reconcile that they are in some way different from everyone else, and that some people are afraid of that. Most will just realize it doesn't matter and get on with their lives; some will have elective cosmetic surgery to change.

But the key is that they were able to make an informed CHOICE. None of these girls have that - and that is the problem here.

Posted by: Dae | June 17, 2010 9:49 PM

Edit to #90 due to sentence structure fail:

Chopping up genitalia on the basis that maybe, another kid will see it and be grossed out by it, and maybe she will be permanently traumatized by that reaction, a reaction which is endemic to childhood in some form, period, unless you live in an isolation chamber.

Should read:

Chopping up genitalia on the basis that maybe, another kid will see it and be grossed out by it, and maybe she will be permanently traumatized by that reaction (a reaction which is endemic to childhood in some form, period, unless you live in an isolation chamber) is irresponsible and absolutely heinous.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 9:51 PM

Ol'Greg:

Also, how are you going to explain that it's ok when this man masturbates you because he's making you pretty so that other men can fuck you later and like it better. And no, how you felt about any of this never mattered because you have no say in what you may want sexually little girl!

Yeah. No psychological damage there. *eyeroll*

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | June 17, 2010 9:51 PM

Frankly, if they were a little bigger they would be much easier to locate.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 9:52 PM

Thinking about the papers I've read regarding the physical risks of these kinds of surgeries, I can't help but wonder if this particular surgeon is thinking, rather than seeing the logical problem this kind of cosmetic surgery presents, only focused on trying to minimize the physical risk.

I could easily imagine a surgeon completely ignoring the larger ethical issues in favor of perfecting a procedure that minimized physical risk.

It fits right in with the mindset of many surgeons I have met myself.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 9:57 PM

skatje.myers:

i'm not saying don't bother trying to instill confidence and self-esteem in your kid, i'm just saying you shouldn't assume it's going to work flawlessly, because this clearly isn't true.

I don't imagine the majority of thinking parents assume it will work flawlessly. All people have doubts and insecurities, that's part of life. Learning to deal with them is part of life too. What a lot of us are saying is that it's a mistake to assume surgeries like this will work at all, let alone flawlessly. Any child will reach an age where they can reasonably consider and decide if cosmetic surgery is truly what they want, whether it is actually that important to them and be able to at least assess the risks.

Posted by: His Noodly Appendage | June 17, 2010 10:02 PM

Dianne, His Noodly Appendage, that is definitely a discussion worth having. In another thread.

I think it's relevant in this one.

While there's a flagrant double standard for the sexes, this shit isn't going to get better.

While you continue to make a special case for FGM, you're propping up the whole set of cultural assumptions that lead to it in the first place.

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 10:07 PM

Josh@79-

Just screwing around; I'm not at all sensitive about capitalization. There are a hell of a lot of people in Chicago who know me as daveau (or Daveau - pron. Dave-oh). It's not just an anonymous handle. Very long time nickname; it's on my license plate.

Breasteses. Totally cracks me up. The spousal unit, too.

Were I truly irritated and being venomous, I would hope that it would be obvious. In the couple years that I've been commenting sporadically here, there are very few regular commenters that I can't like. I've never seen anything from you that I don't agree with. Often people don't get me, particularly in text; I seem obtuse and aloof. I'm not a fighter; I'm a lover.

This is a rare post-work appearance. I don't know the after-dark protocols. Probably finished now.

And now, back to your clitoris mutilation thread.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 10:07 PM

While you continue to make a special case for FGM

you are experiencing a category error of the physical kind.

there are other threads on this VERY SITE dealing with the MGM issue.

so, no, this is not a special case issue.

will you please take your objections elsewhere, like HERE, maybe?

if not, I'm sure you will be told you are a moron and to fuck the hell off any number of times.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 17, 2010 10:10 PM

I think it's relevant in this one.

Oh fuck you and the horse you rode in on. IT IS NOT RELEVANT.

If you really feel the need to talk about penis, fine. Resurrect this old thread and get the hell out of this one.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 10:15 PM

His Noodly Appendage @ 102:

Please see my comment to you at #36, HNA. Try taking it in, and understanding it.

If you persist, I'll be happy to be considerably less polite, as we here at Pharyngula have had this fucking discussion before, at length. Please, get a fucking clue. Thank you.

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 17, 2010 10:17 PM

daveau, perhaps you’re right. I’ll try it your way.

His Noodly Appendage, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

There, is that any clearer?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Dianne | June 17, 2010 10:19 PM

I oppose all cosmetic surgery on children under at least the age of 7. (Note: cosmetic surgery and reconstructive surgery are not the same thing: removal of a port wine stain on the face does not equal clitoris revision.) If a teenager wants her clitoris revised then she can talk about it with her parents and her doctor. If she seems mature enough to understand the risks, it's her decision. And really at that point OFFERING her the option of participating in a study to determine whether she has good nerve preservation makes sense to me.

But a 5 year old? I doubt she'd even be able to understand the question. Yeah, I feel the same way about circumcision, nose jobs for kids (my mother-out-of-law had one done to her when she was a pre-teen because her natural nose was "ugly" so yes, it happens), or earrings on babies. Just...let the kid decide for herself what body modifications she wants. After she's old enough to understand the risks and permanent nature of the changes.

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 10:24 PM

Ben Goren@112-

By George, I think he's got it!

Posted by: Zaphod | June 17, 2010 10:24 PM

"There's something I like about the clitoris, but I can't seem to put my finger on it."

-George Carlin

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 17, 2010 10:29 PM

OurDeadSelves, Caine, Carlie, Mattir, and any other Fake Wives who may be here - please email me at spokesgay @ gmail. I have some special levity for you.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 10:32 PM

That's not happening here.

then why mention it HERE?

sorry, but you're a moron, and fuck the hell off.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 17, 2010 10:33 PM

And that means when this shit happens to men, you scream every bit as loud as when it happens to women.

All I want for Xmas this year is a topic about women that can stay on women. I want people to stop co-opting EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DISCUSSION about women and women's issues and make it about men.

We are not talking circumcision, no matter how you feel about it. The OP was about a specific doctor performing a specific surgery on girls. Did I miss something about how he was wantonly cutting off foreskins? Did little boys have penises that were too big and had to be surgically modified?

No, didn't think so.

I (and others) gave you a link to a circumcision thread. Fucking use it and get your self- and penis obsessed self out of here.

For me. As an early Xmas gift.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 17, 2010 10:34 PM

Oh, yippee, Josh has made me a Fake Wife&trade . You have absolutely no idea how much better this has made my day (really truly).

You may now return to your regularly scheduled discussion of weird-as-shit medical procedures and the people who do them.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2010 10:36 PM

It's like an ET cephalopod operating on a child with a cleft palate without any information on what normal humans look like

or an ET crustacean, perhaps?

I wonder what Dr. Zoidberg would think of all this...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 10:37 PM

ODS:

All I want for Xmas this year is a topic about women that can stay on women. I want people to stop co-opting EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DISCUSSION about women and women's issues and make it about men.

I am so very proud that you are mine and JeffreyD's daughter. And my Sister-Wife. I want the same present.

Posted by: His Noodly Appendage | June 17, 2010 10:38 PM

OurDeadSelves: Indeed, it wasn't being discussed.

But by responding far more strongly to this issue than to MGM, the norm is reinforced yet again.

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 17, 2010 10:39 PM

Sadly, daveau, it seems he doesn’t get it. His Nauseating Appendix is apparently the type to use a discussion of wartime rape as an opportunity to bitch about women who won’t let their husbands use the remote control.

<sigh>

Ah, well. He has to live with himself. I just feel sorry for those who come into close proximity with him.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 10:40 PM

HNA:

Yes, shouting abuse is an awesomely persuasive. Why, I thought you had no rebuttal at all, but then you told me to fuck off, and suddenly I realized you were right and I was wrong.

I see you haven't changed at all. Fine, address my post to you at #36. I'd like to see if you have anything remotely cogent to say about the actual topic of discussion. It appears you don't.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 17, 2010 10:43 PM

Yes, shouting abuse is an awesomely persuasive. Why, I thought you had no rebuttal at all, but then you told me to fuck off, and suddenly I realized you were right and I was wrong.

Dude, seriously. You don't get why you've pissed off a bunch of women and feminist men?

Stay on topic. Stop thinking about dick. We're tired of hearing about it.

Posted by: daveau | June 17, 2010 10:47 PM

Ben Goren@134-

Sadly, daveau, it seems he doesn’t get it.

He is completely wrong. Yes, "shouting abuse is an [sic] awesomely persuasive." It is all we can resort to in the face of such a coherent and impressive argument. Words fail us.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 17, 2010 10:50 PM

And Caine:

am so very proud that you are mine and JeffreyD's daughter.

*giggles* You just made me feel like I'm 15 again.

:D

Posted by: sandiseattle | June 17, 2010 10:52 PM

HNA- you violate a "rule" here= don't disagree with the majority, or if doing so face the "wrath" -titter- of the regulars.
(BTW, drop and go today, don't bother won't be online long enough.)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 10:56 PM

Oh, fuck off Sandi. You know you're lying.

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 17, 2010 10:59 PM

I’ve had enough of this for one evening. There’s a very sweet elderly resident deity in serious need of some belly rubbing, and I must attend to her. (She’s in excellent spirits. Not quite so emaciated, and generally seemingly fully recovered from her ordeal of a few weeks ago…except for some hematurea….)

Anyway, I’ll leave y’ll all with this thought. Why should it be any more legal for somebody to perform elective cosmetic surgery for aesthetic reasons on a minor’s genitals than to perform any other intimate action with those genitals?

Really, how is fondling a kid’s privates, as bad as that is, somehow worse than slicing them up, no matter how carefully and professionally the slicing is done?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 11:06 PM

daveau:

*WTF? Who stuck a nickle in me tonight?

It should happen more often, I always enjoy your posts, daveau.

Posted by: MrFire | June 17, 2010 11:07 PM

HNA- you violate a "rule" here= don't disagree with the majority, or if doing so face the "wrath" -titter- of the regulars.

A slight correction is in order.

HNA is violating the rule that says, "don't derail the thread".

You are violating the rule that says "don't post anything, ever, because whatever you say is invariably fucking stupid".

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 11:14 PM

Azkyroth:

Why the hell would a guy object to an easier-to-find clitoris on his partner?

Really. Honestly, Ichthyic nailed it with his link to the old Twilight Zone ep, Eye of the Beholder. There's simply no standard, no ideal when it comes to genitals. It's all subjective. What one person finds ugly, the next will find beautiful.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 11:24 PM

Kyle N:

Yep, I am a transsexual, a guy with B-cup breasts and a less-than-one-angry-inch dick.

At least your name isn't Hedwig. ;)

They are awesome folks.

Yes they are.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 17, 2010 11:36 PM

McCthulhu (#105)

It ultimately boils down to this: Oversized genitalia is not a cleft palate or vestigial tail.

I would have been mad as fuck if I'd been born with a tail and my parents had had it removed. I think I spent half my childhood with a prosthetic tail pinned to my undies. Not to diminish the orders-of-magnitude greater violation in removing parts of a clitoris, of course. But still. There would have been bloodshed.

Posted by: geekdujour | June 17, 2010 11:39 PM

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that having my privates stimulated by a grown man while my parents watched would be far more damaging than having a boy screaming “ew” because I was different.

Hell, I didn't need ambiguous genitalia to get boys screaming in the opposite direction. The whole ugly duckling phase did that on it's own.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 17, 2010 11:44 PM

Ichthyic:

hmm, have you ever asked them?

maybe you DID have a tail...

You're encouraging a potential patricide/matricide here.

*On the subject of tails, I'm with A. Noyd on this one.

Posted by: Teaude | June 17, 2010 11:59 PM

Ha, this is just the beginning of the problem. CAH, congenital adrenal hyperplasia which can cause serious salt wasting issues if not treated also can cause enlarged clitorii which many pediatricians and obstetricians consider a serious crisis calling for interventions including: shortening or removal of the offending item.

In addition all intersex infants esp. those with ambiguous genitalia, e.g. micro penises (less than two inches stretched), hyperplasia (the urethra coming out on the shaft or at the base of the penis, various incomplete but non life threatening genital dysgenesis, partial andgrogen insensitivity, and complete androgen insensitivity are routinely "normalized" by a team of Gender Identity Doctors in hospitals. This team usually consists of a surgeon, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, and possibly an ethicist. They do not completely inform parents - they rarely give them access to Intersex sites where such cosmetic surgeries are vigorously condemned, and they often scare the parents into egregious surgeries that include hormone therapy.
If you're interested in more on this issue please go to OII - www.intersexualite.org

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 18, 2010 12:12 AM

It might be worth pointing out to the medical establishment that large clits are actually considered attractive by many people (another Dan Savage factoid) and that there are widely available devices to increase clit size temporarily. Accordingly, the reduction procedure may actually be diminishing the girls' sexual attractiveness in addition to their ability to experience pleasure.

And yeah, I don't think a Cephalopod ET would be stupid enough to attempt reconstructive surgery without information on what is actually normal. Only a Crustacean would do that. My. Bad.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 12:15 AM

you guys don't have tails

of course we do, we just wanted to be sensitive to people who have had theirs secretly lopped off by their parents.

Ichthyic - it was the de-horning that pissed me off most.

so I see....

http://witneyman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hellboy.jpg

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 18, 2010 12:20 AM

That should be "I believe the humans call them 'noses' Ms.

Also, Skatje retracted her position, so no point going over it again.

Oh, snap!

But yeah, your post was funny, Ing. :P

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 18, 2010 12:43 AM

This is one of the times that it is good to be a naturopathic physician instead of a surgeon.
Obviously many surgeons are still barbers-or did I mean barbarians?
Of course a clitoris is not too big. If there is increaed androgenization, then it will cease to be a clitoris and will be an "ambiguous phallus"
with various degrees of hypospadias/urogenital sinus preservation. This latter case MAY need to be adjusted for health reasons.
But there is no reason to claim that a clitoris is too big. Actually most of the clitoris is hidden under the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
There is NO acceptable reason for cutting on a child like this. It is child abuse. There is no reason for electro-stimulation tests or the like either. If they want to know how much sensation
they cut off, just put the resected part under a microscope. Yeah structure doesn't equal sensory function or nerve transmission, but the point is
that any nerve tissue under the microscope is not acceptable. Further, there is alot that we don't know with regard to the VASCULAR response and hemodynamics of "non-neural" clitoral tissue such as diminished clitoral corporal tissue and the effects of scar tissue on vascular integrity.
These stimulation tests don't tell us about these things. It is just sexual abuse. It is born from social disease. It is sexist. It is inhumane. It is insecurity masquerading as science and politics masquerading as medicine. It should be
criminal and outlawed.

M. Italiano, MB BS (AM)

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 12:45 AM

It should be
criminal and outlawed.

so should homeopathy and naturopathy.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 18, 2010 12:51 AM

Seconded what Caine said to Yahoomess. Are you fecking kidding? There is no such thing as a "naturopathic" physician, as compared to an "allopathic" physician. One is a real doctor, the other (you) is a quack.

Pray tell, what does that mess of letters after your name (MB BS (AM)) purport to signify?

Posted by: TMK | June 18, 2010 12:58 AM

If we look hard enough at all sorts of traits - none of us fall into the class that is "normal" for everything. I have abnormally long femurs - no one is going to cut down my legs so they are more in proportion to my height.

however, clitoris size can be indicative of other, more serious, hormonal issues. Or it is just natural variation - either way, it should at least be looked at (just NOT cut down).

For more on intersex and the most famous person that may fall into this class - Caster Semenya - check out: http://www.scienceinseconds.com/episodes/Intersex

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 18, 2010 1:22 AM

Mr. M collapsed in hysterical giggles when I told him that the surgeon's name was Dix Poppas. Then he said "You know, that guy's the BP of the medical world. They're going to have to have a separate hospital entrance just for the process servers."

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 18, 2010 2:24 AM

Shit that was hard to read.

Yeah, this shit does connect up well with what happens to trans people, with doctors regularly deciding their genitals are "wrong" and deciding upon themselves or the parents pressuring doctors to "fix" them and basically choose a sex for them, often guessing completely wrong causing the poor kid to go through gender dysmorphia on top of their mutilated genitals all over insane bullshit like there being a "correct" look to genitalia.

And yeah, it happens to regular old non-intersex cis-women as this notes.

Long clitorises happen, just as micropenises happen or even little button clitorises that almost seem to hide in the folds entirely and penises that swing like a horse.

It's heterogeneity bitches and this forced conformity butchery...

For the gamers in the audience, remember the first section of Bioshock after the tutorial sections where you're at the Doctor's...

Yeah. In short for those who don't get that reference, it's inhumane butchery and hideous god-complex at its worst and I'm really struggling not to hope that he accidentally leans into a spinning saw blade in the near future.

I'm sorry, I've just heard too many horror stories from the intersex (would it be hirstories?) stuff and this...holey fuck.

And then dildoing them afterwards to "test the nerve endings". That isn't just pedo shit. That is literal child rape. He is raping their children in front of their parents and calling it intellectual rigor. There is no way a kid can consent to that or even understand what is happening to them and there is no way that won't negatively impair their ability to have sexual relationships later in exactly the same way as every other child rape survivor and incest survivor.

It's...

I'm sorry for the disjointed comment. I told you this was hard to take.

As far as the comments, thank you Caine, Ol' Greg, Mattir, Josh, and others. I love this community so much some times and the many cogent and strong comments made it easier to scroll down.

Skatje...she's young. She's young. She's young. I just need to keep repeating that to myself because that "it's okay to chop up little girls for an insane and unbiological "beauty standards" because their boyfriends might be mean to them was just...holey fuck. She's young, she'll grow out of the stupid.

The asshole who tried to derail the conversation, hell, why not, cause there are penises are chopped off in similar fashions. Some of the intersex people in that in-between stage, well their butchers doctors guess wrong and so assume that penis is a vagina so they carve it all off, bye bye, so they can be a pretty little girl, all nature's perfection, until they live their whole life with gender dysmorphia and a haunting sensation because they were really by internal sex actually a boy and they could have had their intersex penis the whole time, maybe even "normal" looking male genitalia if they were allowed to drop, but now need to do the crap transmen have to because of some overeager butcher wanting to "spare them" the "pain" of being a "freak" and....

Sorry, this comment is one giant ramble. Sorry I couldn't keep it together enough to be more cogent.

I guess what I'm saying is. By accident of nature, I was born into the wrong body. Brain doesn't synch with body and this physically male body must go through hell and highwater to be the girl's body it should have always been.

I can't imagine the horror of having a body "not be right", be cut up and mutilated and made wrong, because someone just decided it'd be better that way. Of having that body that was right or even closer to being right all this time, but some sick fuck wanted to literally force you into some insane beauty standard.

And yes, this is just as unconscienable as feet-binding, skin bleaching of black babies to "lighten them up", the old plastic surgeries they would perform on jewish babies so they wouldn't look as jewish and all of the other horrible forced mutilations for arbitrary fucking beauty.

I can hardly stand the voluntary full consent plastic surgery industry.

This?!?

This abomination to humanity?

Kill it with fire.

Again, sorry for the rambling post.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | June 18, 2010 2:28 AM

We know that the variation is normal, and that the frequency of children born with intersex genitals is in the neighborhood of 0.1%...

Posted by: madbull | June 18, 2010 2:36 AM

knife to my clit ?? THWAAACK
being known as the 'girl with a dick' - :'(

I guess the only solution is to promote acceptance of variety in the human species. Heteronormativity is not the only issue. We desire to be 'normal' in so many ways, and the pressure to be 'normal' according to a said image created by fashion magazines, the internet, tv etc is transmitted through society.

Tummy tucks, botox shots, man I can't even let my eyebrows grow cos I'm a girl and they cant be outgrown and bushy. The same goes with clothing. Now I know quite well that eyebrow mutilation isn't the same as clitoral mutilation but don't you think what prompts parents to make the decision to cut off their baby's genitals is the same underlying reason ? To gain acceptance.

I do think that the culture of fitting into a 'normal or beautiful/handsome' image is the real culprit.
Let us accept the not so perfect tummy, the sagging cheeks of old age, small breasts ,small penises, bushy female eyebrows etc all as normal and beautiful. (because that's true!)
The clitoris is just part of the problem, though it is the most painful to set 'right'.

Infact I think homophobia also fits in here. (you need to fit into the 'right' sexuality)
baahh!

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | June 18, 2010 2:39 AM

This nonsense indicates more about insecurities and hangups of the parents then it does the child's.

They are more worried about their self image and what other folks might whisper to one and other in church then any likely benefit to the cuttee.

After all who is going to be cruising around checking young clitoral sizes and making judgements on the child or worse mum and dad anyway?...(I mean who do they expect the village woo meister generaal complete with holy juice to burn the demon clit away?)

At the very probable risk of bias I would infer that repressed sexuality in religious circles would possibly add a dimension of culpability here.
And all religions suffer from that being in the main patriarchal institutions and none so sexually repressed then the xian male.

So afraid of life and there own bodily functions they would rather mutilate their own children then risk being the giggly but shocked tittle tattle scuttlebutt point in their jaundiced aspiration of polite churchy circles.

As for 'chuckles' coining it on the back of ignorant and prudish fools...ethics committee to good for the likes..strike the git...simples!

Posted by: Manny Calavera | June 18, 2010 2:49 AM

Loved the post and totally agree. However, I'd suggest you alter the line,
"They seem to come in a range of sizes" to "they always seemed to come in a range of sizes"
or even "I'd imagine they come in a range of sizes" before the wife sees it.

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | June 18, 2010 2:54 AM

@josh § 103:

I partly agree with you, clitrectomy is in no way analogus to lopping of the foreskin. But:

1: Not all FGMs are clitrectomies. You will find many kinds (that are allso banned by most western laws) that are far less severe than the northern american MGM.

2: Not all MGMs are just about lopping off the foreskin. There is some nasty shit out there - albeit the severe MGMs are pretty uncommon.

3: It's not about little boys vs little girls - it's all about cutting into little children for no good reason. And untill we stop all of that shit we are going to see cases like this*

* This one may actually be fine if (and only if) the organ in question was so large the little girl got rug-burn from her panties and there was no other way of preventing that. Other than that - there's kw'k, lecia rangefinder and sideways motion for the "medical personell" involved in thos.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 18, 2010 3:10 AM

Thebear @192

I see the points you want to make, but see...

Let's see how to put it.

Every fucking time there's a conversation about female genital mutilation, cliterectomies, etc... it always, every single time gets taken over by dudebro nation whining about circumcision.

And frankly, I agree, circumcision should cease and has no place being involuntarily given to young boys and is a barbaric practice overall supported on a pillar of lies and scaremongering in defense of religion.

But see, again, every fucking time, real horrible crimes get over-run by petulant fee-fees.

We need to stop talking about women having their primary sexual organ literally lopped off by a few inches while they are raped by a vibrator in front of their smiling abusive parents, because I had my peepee cover shortened.

Yeah, it's bad, yeah, I'd like it to stop.

But what I'd like even more is any thread on the internet about the horrible things our fucked up society does to women's and non-normative intersex male genitalia to not be overrun by the goddamn foreskin brigade.

Just once.

It's insensitive, it's pathetic and it's openly dismissive of the humanity of women in an exceedingly insensitive way.

Yes, all hail the penis, now scroll up, find the link to the fee-fee thread and post your shit there.

Posted by: hauntedchippy | June 18, 2010 3:19 AM

The surgery is cosmetic and thus has no benefit to the person's physical health (indeed, it poses a slight risk as all surgery does). But that doesn't make it worthless.
How is a very large clitoris any different to very large ears or a large nose or any facial deformity or even a very large birthmark?
A deformed nose is as healthy as a 'normal' nose.
Like it or not, people are judged by their appearance; it's why you find some people more physically attractive than others.
Because of this there is (rightly or wrongly) a pressure to make one's self as attractive as possible. We all groom ourselves, we all consider how to dress, some of us wear make-up and others even bathe themselves in UV radiation to further this goal. AND some opt for cosmetic surgery to fix an obvious physical deformity that may distract others.

When it comes to children I agree there is an issue of consent. But, parents are responsible for acting in their child's interest, which is why, for example, we vaccinate children without the informed consent of the child. 'Best interests' is a subjective term of course, but cosmetic surgery can be argued to be in a child's best interest. I was fortunate enough to not have any obvious deformities but I'm sure we can remember one or two at school who weren't so fortunate and paid dearly (and perhaps still are paying) for it.

It may be argued that because the clitoris is generally out of view of the general population that it's not as much an issue as a facial deformity, and I would agree. But that doesn't mean people won't see it before these young girls are old enough to consent to the surgery. A teenage girl may easily find herself in an intimate situation where this would happen and, with an obvious deformity, other people (or at least children who haven't been conditioned not to) will instinctively gawk or do a double take which can easily destroy someone's confidence in their image. I'm sure the same would happen were someone to encounter a sufficiently misshapen or undersized penis on another person. Rightly or wrongly, it will happen, and if cosmetic surgery can remove that possibility then it's easy to see why parents would opt for it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 3:28 AM

And how is that different from circumcision? PZ, you need to stop being sexist and one-sided on this and be against all mutilation regardless of the baby's gender. And stop giving the females special treatment.

stinky troll bait is... stinky.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 3:30 AM

When it comes to children I agree there is an issue of consent. But, parents are responsible for acting in their child's interest, which is why, for example, we vaccinate children without the informed consent of the child.

this is a horrible comparison.

if you don't retract it, I will shove it down your throat, figuratively.

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | June 18, 2010 3:37 AM

@ Cerebus:

I think I failed a bit at expressing my self.

My main problem with the piece Josh wrote wasn't that he told #102 to shup up. That is fine.

My main issue is people talking about FGM as it is one thing, one issue.

Although I think all should be banned(on children mind you - if Houston wants to have labiaplastic she can have it*), and especially the most invasive ones: They are not all the same. They should not be treated as the same. They should not be discussed as the same. There is a world of difference between cutting off your daughters clitoris and nicking her foreskin.

And, since I apparently have a difficulty getting my point across: Both are wrong.

This has some issues towards MGMs too, but since these issues apparently confuse you I'll leave them. They are not central to my point.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 3:40 AM

There is a world of difference between cutting off your daughters clitoris and nicking her foreskin.

neither of which is the subject of discussion HERE.

relevance: look it up.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | June 18, 2010 3:45 AM

#196

it's easy to see why parents would opt for it

No it is not...how in the name of Beelzebub's short and curlies do the parents know for sure and damned right that it will be an issue after the rest of the structures in that area actually develop to adult proportions.

Just because the clit 'looks' abnormally sized or shaped when the child is so young and physically immature does not mean it will develop in a linear relationship with the rest of the surrounding area!
And who the fuck will be inspecting it so closely apart from a paediatrician at that young age?
Or indeed who should be inspecting it so closely apart from a paediatrician?

Make no mistake it is Mum & Daddy dear that request this, not randomly implemented sociological aesthetics!

'Chuckles' has just cashed in on Ma & Pa's discomfort, instead of urging patience and issuing reassurance,he makes more green and crinkle slicing, simple equation apprently.

If it is an issue at an older age then a teen-aged female in consultation with mum might be moved to request surgery, along with informed, independent and unbiased medical advice of course.

No one is saying that surgery in that area is a no no...what is a no no is ignorant assumption causing ridiculous pannic and avaricious fuckwads that care more about bank account then patient health and happiness!

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 3:56 AM

he makes more green

I could be wrong, but I doubt that is the motivation.

I'm going with him using the opportunity to work out surgical techniques that minimize risk in these kinds, or related, surgeries. He simply, as a surgeon, left the assessment of ethics of the experiment to his department.

He is, evidently, one of the leading child urologists in the country from what I can make out.

I don't know how that excuses a surgeon from having such an apparent lack of ethics, or how the department could overlook it to begin with, but I am really curious to find out.

Posted by: SEF | June 18, 2010 4:05 AM

@ hauntedchippy #196:

we vaccinate children without the informed consent of the child

Because that's an urgent matter! It's unlikely to harm the child and it's likely to prevent them becoming severely disabled or dead long before their consent can be sought.

The same goes for interventionist surgery to fix faulty heart plumbing. If you don't do it ASAP (even though this time there's quite a high risk of operating), then they're dead.

There's nothing medically urgent about mutilating someone's clitoris. Anyone doing that sort of unnecessary surgery early on is clearly deliberately trying to deny that individual their own choice later. The same as with the dishonest religious nutters who do it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 4:10 AM

I should say, I don't think money was the surgeon's motivation.

It could very well be that money coming to Cornell as the result of a "new successful surgical procedure", could be at the root of an ethics committee overlooking very suspect methodologies.

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | June 18, 2010 4:15 AM

@ Cerebus:

You really seem hell-bent in interpeting my words in the worst possible meaning - and I see nothing I can to to rectify that.

Having re-read Josh' original statement I probably shouldn't have opended my stuipid mouth in the first place. I felt he was obscuring some issues that shouldn't be obscured in the context of the contect of the original topic, but as I've failed to put out this in a way that doesn't confuse some people I'll shut up and be sorry I opened my mouth in the first place.

Posted by: holydust | June 18, 2010 4:37 AM

WHY does he need to use a fucking VIBRATOR?!

Doctors test for numbness and sensitivity all the god-damned time. They don't need to use a sex toy for that.

I don't need any other proof that this guy is a butcher and a child rapist.

Who do I write/throttle to help get something done about this? Do we just sit and gawk?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 5:02 AM

the links to the articles in Savage's writeup attempt further clarifications and explanations, like this one:

You can expect, as with Tuskegee, that the clinician-researchers are never going to understand that they did anything wrong. They think of themselves as good people (most clinicians are), and they forget that good intentions are not enough, especially when careerism causes tunnel vision.

from:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201006/can-you-hear-us-now?

that article is worth reading in its entirety, too.

this tends to support what I was thinking; that this surgeon had "good intentions", but has simply lost sight of the ethical ramifications of what he was doing and how he was doing it. Yes, he needs to be reviewed by their ethics committee at this point, and the ethics committee itself should be evaluated for policy and enforcement by an external agency.

I do note that this is not an isolated incident, according to the authors of the article I cited. However, they also mention that the medical community as a whole has been progressively moving towards the simple (and to many, obvious) idea that these cosmetic surgeries are not only unnecessary, but harmful.

so, maybe attitudes that foment research like that done by Poppas will not be an issue soon?

I myself can't see underlying attitudes towards trying to change yourself, or your kids looks, to fit societal norms really changing for the better, but, one step at a time I guess.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 5:16 AM

non busted links:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17707043

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17707008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14597017

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | June 18, 2010 5:35 AM

Ichthyic

You do make a fair and balanced point but most folks here, that you seem to be berating for leaping to conclusions, is also an assumption all of its own apparently!

From the link provided in the OP.

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.".......

There's lots to be outraged about here: there's nothing wrong with these girls and their healthy, functional-if-larger-than-average clitorises; there's no need to operate on these girls; and surgically altering a girl's clitoris because it's "too big" has been found to do lasting physical and psychological harm. But what's most outrageous is how Poppas is "proving" that his surgery "spares nerves."

Which as you can see is a far far different conclusion reached by the original author Dan Savage!

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | June 18, 2010 5:46 AM

I hold my hand up readily to the charge of assumption pontification, but in defence there is a lot of crazy out there.
Although that in itself is also a dubious defence.
It would not surprise that is was in fact an SOP in some quarters, which on its own is a poor and very sadly cynical conclusion to reach!

Posted by: etienne | June 18, 2010 6:00 AM

Hi All,
Everything has been said to express how unacceptable and unethical this is.
Just for the sake of having a full story, I'd be glas to read from PZ how the thing has been followed by the journal (withdrawal of the paper maybe?)as well as by the university. Great posting, really.
EB from Belgium

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 18, 2010 6:06 AM

so... does the interpretation of the ethics of his methods change if he was addressing an actual dysfunction, rather than merely a cosmetic issue?"

I see later it was clarified that not all the children had CAH, but the general ideal now is NOT to surgically "treat" intersex until the person is of age to make that decision themselves.

Posted by: szwagier.myopenid.com | June 18, 2010 6:32 AM

There are a helluva lot of comments here, but, as far as I can see (without having read every single one all the way through), no-one's mentioned this yet:

Here is the New York Presbyterian (Poppas') Hospital's take on CAH. The part I find most disturbing is:

In some infant girls who have ambiguous genitalia, reconstructive surgery may be required to correct the appearance and function of the genitals, a procedure that may involve reducing the size of the clitoris and reconstructing the vaginal opening.

In some infant girls. Not boys, you'll notice. Apparently boys with oversized dicks are OK (but we all 'knew' that). Never mind the phrase "correct the appearance" of the genitals. I concede that there might be medical reasons for correcting the function, if this refers to urination, for example. Any other function (menstruation/sexual activity) can be dealt with later when the patient is capable of having at least some understanding of what the surgery will entail.

The more I learn about this procedure, the more disgusted I become. I can't even begin to think about the (possible?/probable?) psychological effects of the post-op 'research'.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | June 18, 2010 7:50 AM

All my children (2m followed by If) were born with what appeared to be relatively ridiculously large genital erectile tissue, and many friends said the same of their own children. Changing napkins always followed the same course:

a) Place infant on mat.

b) Remove napkin, place in bucket

c) Wipe, dry and powder rear end, leave to kick.

d) Small hands eagerly seek genitalia.

e) Approach infant with lined kite-fold and attempt to displace small hands whilst saying "Yes Joe/Jemima, it is great fun, I know, but how can I put this on you while you are playing with your splendid willie/pussie?" They will not respond to this since you are mumbling round the open safety pin you have in your mouth.

f) Hands briefly move for sufficiently long to apply nappie, or send jet of urine into face, or
down shirt-front - return to c)above.

It wasn't just my kids, either, I frequently baby-sat - are the little sods in league?

Now subjectively I have found the most sensitive part of my penis is at the tip. Intimate acquaintance with the proprietors of other penes, and indeed, analogous (Not homologous thanks Wikipaedia!) clitorides has caused me, upon observation, to form the opinion that what I know is true for me is probably true for all. They both come in all shapes and sizes, and all are beautiful. The most attractive part of anybody lies between their ears - no, not the tongue! I mean what sits atop the spinal column and resembles so much porridge post-mortem. For those of us without an interesting psych-pathology, it is what we engage with first in others.

I was circumcised shortly after birth in 1950, because it was then fashionable, but there were not then self-dissolving sutures and to this day I have small pieces of what look and feel like pieces of pig-bristle exiting my urethra and frenulum. I am not sure I can explain it properly for those of the female persuasion but for certain chaps who can relate to my experience of having the Cu tails of an IUD enter your urethra, what was your experience? Short shsrp and nasty, eh? Now imagine the same thing continuing for up to a week.

My elder son had to be circumcised at age six, by reason of otherwise intractable phimosis. I am sooo pleased he was that age, because although his mother or I would have to sign the consent form, we were able to speak sensibly with him before-hand, and he gave us his moral authority so to do.

Sorry to be writing a bloody book, I was brain-damaged as a child with certain neurological sequelae, have suffered injuries since, with, would you believe, further neurological sequelae?

That's the back-story. Now to return to the thread, if I can remember what it was!

We ALL owe a duty of care to the vulnerable, we CANNOT abdicate this responsibility. It is for society to adjust itself to the beauty and diversity of the human race, not vice-versa. Enough can happen to neurological syastems by accident - if it's not yours, leave it alone!

Posted by: Judy L. | June 18, 2010 8:04 AM

*But you are allowed to mention male circumcision as did Franklin Percival above (#232) to illustrate medically necessary surgery to children's genitals and the value and benefit of a child being old enough to understand and be involved in their experience and participate as fully as they can in the "consent" part of their medically necessary surgery.

Posted by: TMK | June 18, 2010 8:19 AM

For those of you interested in some more leisure reading on the subject (if that is possible), Jeffrey Eugenides wrote a book entitled "Middlesex" that chronicled the life of an intersex individual. A shout out goes to the integration of accurate science and psychological issues associated with this situation.

An excellent read.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2010 8:43 AM

#196

we vaccinate children without the informed consent of the child

I'm not sure you could more miss understand the point if it was a 200 foot penis and you were clobbered over the head with it.

Posted by: szwagier.myopenid.com | June 18, 2010 8:55 AM

Now I know this isn't particularly relevant, and I'm sure that the 'good Doctor' (whatever happened to 'do no harm'? And don't come spouting House at me, this is real life, not a fading TV series) thoroughly deserves it, but where, how, and why did Poppas get the money for a 41-foot yacht?

Posted by: ButchKitties | June 18, 2010 9:19 AM

Even if we accept the premise that it's socially necessary to assign a distinct gender to an intersex child, in order to integrate the child into society, how does it follow that it's also necessary to perform surgery to make the sex organs match that gender assignment? Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the intersex person is old enough to independently form a gender identity, to make sure you got the gender assignment right?

Oops, we didn't know you would identify as male. We'll just krazy glue the parts we lopped off back on. Good thing we had them preserved in lucite.

Posted by: Dianne | June 18, 2010 9:25 AM

In some infant girls. Not boys, you'll notice. Apparently boys with oversized dicks are OK (but we all 'knew' that).

CAH doesn't cause any abnormalities in the genitalia of male infants. Neither large nor small penises result. In fact, this is kind of a problem because some of the severe forms of CAH cause salt wasting and other nasty problems of steroid deficiency and the lack of genital abnormality can delay the diagnosis.

However, I agree with the more general point: If the parents of an infant boy brought him in because his penis appeared to be the "wrong" size his parents would get the lecture on normal variation and changes with growth and development. If the boy got teased in school, his classmates would get a long lecture on cultural sensitivity. I doubt anyone would suggest surgery on the infant.

Posted by: mistereveready | June 18, 2010 9:30 AM

sometimes people don't seem to appreciate a work of art. of course i dont use that term the same way a creationist would.

really should be up to the child (when they become an adult legally) or something whether or not they want to have that surgery.

if it was something medically unhealthy or debilitating, say that the clit was large enough could qualify to get assistance for assistance from the Little Donny Foundation then maybe, but i'd still opt for the person themselves later in life.

the doctor sounds like a weirdo to me.

Posted by: Not Guilty | June 18, 2010 9:34 AM

How about a new rule. No surgery on children unless it is life saving. Nothing. No taking a scalpel to a child unless it will save their life. These children should be removed from their parents; they are not fit to be parents.

Posted by: Tim Harris | June 18, 2010 9:37 AM

Or look at the brilliant career of Harry Harlow at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which involved the abuse of baby monkeys. Karl Polanyi in The Great Transformation spoke of the kind of people who 'steeled' themselves with science. Science is not simply, as one would love it to be, and as it is in the hands of good men, the humble discovery of truths about the world, but involves power, hubris, and the abuse of power. And children, whether human or simian, are grist to the mills of such as Harlow, Money, Poppas, and the fellow who lobotomised Rosemary Kennedy. I would say that the important issue here is not whether female genital mutilation is worse than male genital mutilation (it usually is - far worse), but the abuse of the power conferred by being recognised as a scientist.

Posted by: szwagier.myopenid.com | June 18, 2010 9:41 AM

Or even #244. Sorry, Dianne.

Posted by: mistereveready | June 18, 2010 10:12 AM

lol nice one boboniboni

forgot all about bioshock.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 18, 2010 10:20 AM

A late and rather incoherent rant, but I'll throw it in all the same:

You know, as far as I'm concerned for all the people who are saying "but teenage boys will be grossed out" and I say this as a person who for a year or so had her classmates following her throwing rocks at her and trying to get her to jump off of this bridge into traffic-- not to mention the sex stuff-- that if you start operating on your damned kid to make it sexier or prettier in advance of this kind of bullying and rejection, then you're not sparing them anything. You're doing the same damned thing only you're even taking away their right to be indignantly pissed about it.

Because it's up to me, and me alone, to decide what to do with my life and my body and how I want to recognize the abuse.

It belongs to me just like my body, and anyone who doesn't believe in me enough to trust that I can do that and would cut me up due to their perceived faults in me, is no better than the other abusers.

Cowards. Selfish, vain, shallow, over-privileged, and stupid. What kind of idiots would fuck with some one's body to make sure that idiotic teenage boys never get their ignorance challenged, and people who don't fit the norm are hacked apart like the monsters they obviously are to the good people who'd defend this practice. Over what? A heartbreaking encounter where some one says "eew!"

Because there just hasn't been enough policing of women's bodies.

Right. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

You know what's funny? You never know what people will find unlikable or unwantable in you. You may appear faultless and some fucker will still pound your face in and call you a slut.

And you never know what you want to do about it until you face it. But if you start assuming it and accepting it and hacking away at a face that might "deserve" pounding in, then what's the fucking difference between a scalpel and fist at that point?

But most importantly if you're not the one who deals with it you have absolutely no ability to judge how the person going through it is going to feel, or change, or what decisions they'll want to make.

Some people in my family are disabled, for instance. Functional, but obviously not "normal" and personally I'm sick of this shame people instill in each other under the smarmy veil of protecting them from bullying.

But we're afraid some one will laugh at you dear, so we did this for your own good.

Fuck me sideways with a rusty chainsaw. Might as well. Same fucking difference.

If these girls grow up and decide they'd like to have a more normal looking clitoris then more power to them.

But so long as some one else is making the decision for them it's going to be unethical.

Posted by: Dianne | June 18, 2010 10:35 AM

No surgery on children unless it is life saving. Nothing. No taking a scalpel to a child unless it will save their life.

I'd consider that going too far in the other direction. What about conditions that aren't life threatening but are very awkward for the child? Suppose, for example, that the clitoris was not just "too big" but instead was somehow blocking the urethra so the child couldn't pee. Technically, there are alternatives to surgical reconstruction in that case: a suprapubic catheter or dialysis, for example, but either would involve serious inconvenience, pain, and risk for the child. In that case, surgery on the clitoris might actually be the least painful and invasive for the child.

So I believe that there's a continuum from "the appendix is about to burst it's go in or die" to "that baby's nose looks a millimeter too long: let's fix it" with many cases in the middle. Clitoris surgery without medical necessity is way over into the bad ideas category.

Posted by: palefury | June 18, 2010 10:39 AM

Why can't we be more like the Bugis people of South Sulawesi in Indonesia who recognize five genders These include makkunrai (feminine woman), calabai (feminine man), calalai (masculine female), oroané (masculine man), and bissu (embodying both male and female energies). In fact the bissu (our 0.1%) are revered above all others.

Diversity makes us great!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugis#Present_lifestyle

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | June 18, 2010 10:49 AM

@ Ol' Greg: It's ok to rant when you rant this good.

Posted by: Frank b | June 18, 2010 11:01 AM

I had a circumcision when I was very young, and I understand why my parents had it done. I have never seen an uncircumcised penis in the flesh (pun intended). I have seen pictures and I don't like the way they look. That is the way I am, and I am content. I have issues with my parents that loom large right now, but that decision, made a long time ago, is not part of it.

I think it likely that most American women who had clitoris reduction surgery when they were young feel the same way. Does anyone have data on this? But don't get me wrong, don't jump to conclusions. I support science when it comes to discouraging circumcision and other cosmetic surgeries.

Poppas needs to be yelled at, because he is doing something that is obviously wrong. But circumcision and reduction of large clitorises is unlikely to ruin a persons life. Parents who face complex social situations don't need to be insulted and yelled at. Hauntedchippy and I don't need to be yelled at either, just because we like a little moderation in the thread.

Posted by: szwagier.myopenid.com | June 18, 2010 11:25 AM

@Sven #245

It's not from this particular procedure.

Hi. Did I say it was? Or even imply it?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 18, 2010 11:36 AM

Hi. Did I say it was? Or even imply it?

Nope. You just asked the question. But holydust @#243 sez:

i'm sure he's enjoying his kiddy mutilation money.

Posted by: cyc | June 18, 2010 11:53 AM

I am fully in support of the idea that this practice needs to be done away with. I'm also in agreement that more people need to realize that there is variation in clitoris size and that this is perfectly normal. Unfortunately, I also know that in our screwed up society, someone who possesses a larger then normal clitoris could find themselves in situations where it would end up being seen as something wrong and their partner running off and spreading rumors that end up being quite damaging to the person, both socially and psychologically.

In such cases, I could see an adult wanting to correct the issue. But correcting it by lobbing off part of it seems rather crude. Correct me if I am wrong, but would it not be possible to surgically cut around the clitoris and then push it back inside the body until it appears of 'normal' size. This would avoid damaging the nerves entirely. Would it decrease the amount of pleasure the individual might experience compared to leaving it alone? Possibly, as it would reduce exposed surface area that can be stimulated. But this would be something that an adult would have to weigh the benefits against the risks. In an ideal society, it would never be an issue, but in ours, it could be. But it should only be left to the decision of the adult who possess the clitoris. Not the parents hoping to correct an imagined 'deformity'.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 18, 2010 12:33 PM

aebrain @261

Thank you very much for that and for your bravery. I'm trans not intersex but I've tried to read what I can about what you have to go through and it disturbs me to no end. Thank you for speaking truth to power here.

On the thread in general:

I think I've figured out what aspects have been freaking me out the most especially last night.

First of all, are the 1/3 of intersex who are "corrected" wrong. They had a penis (albeit all "confusedly" intersex) and then some butcher of a doctor stole it from them and then they had to go through what I have to.

Not because of some accident of nature like me, not something that's no one's fault but the unique diversity of nature. But because some asshole defending a binary and a beauty standard wanted to defend the bullies and take their side.

Oh, yes, of course, no nice man would accept you with imperfect genitals, you may be teased and that would be so horrible (cause everyone who's ever grown up knows that kids never get teased for stupid reasons as long as their genitals look fantastic). And for that, bye bye large segments of your clit or your penis altogether.

Oh, you ended up with the gender dysmorphia? Oh well.

I may deal with it as I do, but I wouldn't wish that particular mental hell on my worst enemy and certainly not because some fucking god-complex enforcing the gender binary asshole cut off my correct genitals at birth.

Second, I think is the whole "no one would ever love a chick with dick, they should be killed with fire" thing.

I am a woman. I have a dick.

Guess you should just shoot my unlovable hideous Frankenstein of a self in the head. Cause if a clitoris being longer than porn-star standard causes the all-important abusive male obsessed with not looking remotely "gay" could almost be put off then we should just hack him up or write them off as people altogether.

Third, the whole abuse of power, the massive mutilations of genitals, the SOP for intersex people that are an abomination, the beauty myth enforcement, and everything else that should normally appall from a case like this.

But I think the first two were the extra bit that caused me to shake in fear and hatred and utter psychic hell that hit me last night.

Posted by: kidcharles | June 18, 2010 12:45 PM

I'm going to wade into the circumcision issue and ignore everyone who says I'm a sexist...

Why do you think that it even occurs to people that it is reasonable to chop off parts of a baby girl's genitalia? Might it be that there is a long-standing and socially-accepted form of genital surgery (male circumcision) that predates it? I'm not equating what the doctor in the post is doing with male circumcision (they aren't the same physiologically), but can you deny the possibility that the existing culture of genital surgery on babies makes clitoral reduction more acceptable? I argue that the acceptance of one medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on infants lowers prohibitions on other, similar surgeries.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | June 18, 2010 12:50 PM

Follow-up to my 273:
I don't mean to imply that humiliations don't happen. They do. Just that it will very likely not be as common as the fearful seem to think it will be.

Also, there are other ways to alleviate social harm, like being an attentive parent who regularly communicates with your children and listens to them regarding their experiences. You can offer a lot of guidance and ease a lot of pain, even if you can't prevent it or heal it immediately. They can grow into adults who cope well and function successfully in a society that often isn't as bad as it's made out to be in nightmare scenarios.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 18, 2010 1:14 PM

To Caine, Fleur du mal OM, Josh, Ing, Ichthyic and the other trolls-

Naturopathic physicians are real physicians. A DO DO (doctor of osteopathy) is a real physician also. But actually MD, DO, ND, MBBS, are technically not real doctors. A PhD is a real doctor as a doctorate requires the submission and defense of an original thesis. But just to give you a basic idea of what a naturopathic physician does-

http://drabele.com/?page_id=8

My degree (india) is the foreign equivalent.
In India, I am a real physician. The govt. of India indicates that you are wrong.
In the UK, Australia, India, a physician is trained at the bachelor's level. MB BS
stands for a bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery. The letters AM signifies alternative medicine. It is official and licensed in India and Govt. recognized for doing any type of physical exam, making any medical diagnosis using ICD, and ordering any med test (x-rays, ultrasounds, EEGs, MRIs) and so on all on equal grounds as an allopath. I can also prescribe hormones there, give injections, practice Chinese medicine, do osteopathy, and the other things at the above link.
Physician and Surgeon were derived as two seperate and distinct professions. In some countries it remains that way.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | June 18, 2010 1:26 PM

Maybe the size of the clitoris doesn't matter for mormon men and women, since the man is never supposed to get a close-up look:

The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.

Link to page two: http://inconnu.islug.org/~ink/xm/oral_sex_2.jpg

Link to page one of this letter to "All Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops; and Branch Presidents...":
http://inconnu.islug.org/~ink/xm/oral_sex_1.jpg

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2010 1:33 PM

Was that a duck I just heard?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 1:43 PM

Naturopathic physicians are real physicians.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 1:55 PM

Yahoomess:

To Caine, Fleur du mal OM, Josh, Ing, Ichthyic and the other trolls-

My my, what an asshat you are. We aren't trolls, we're regular commenters here.

Naturopathic physicians are real physicians.

No, they are not. The doctor under discussion is operating in the U.S., so I will discuss U.S. standards here. To call yourself Dr. or physician, you must have an MD. Full stop.

The U.S. is chock full of woo scam artists, who call themselves "Naturopathic Doctors". Except, by law, they are not allowed to call themselves Doctor or Physician. They have to include the "naturopathic" bit, which means they aren't a doctor.

I don't give a shit what your degrees signify in India - if you're pushing AM crap, you're pushing crap, you're a woo-soaked con artist who is doing a wealth of harm.

Now you can kindly go fuck yourself. You don't suddenly pop up in a thread here and start calling people trolls and if you're going to insist on defending alternative medicine, you've come to the wrong place. We have actual doctors who have been posting in this thread, you know. You aren't one of them.

Posted by: Teaude | June 18, 2010 2:10 PM

Our hats off to all the posts from brave and courageous men and women who are willing to speak out against the continuing defense of the binary by surgical interventions.

There are conditions that do require infant surgery such as cloacal dystrophy. But these conditions do not justify inherently cosmetic genital surgeries. No CAH are not intersex by medical definition but then doctors insist that the intersex are "disorders of sex development" implying with that name DSD that there is a way to "fix" or "correct" them.

John Money of John Hopkins fame set the frame for much of this cut and fix with his John Joan case. Here an accident during circumcision cauterization caused the removal of the penis. So John was given a vagina and put on hormones. Dr. Money continued to provide updates on the wonderful success of this adventure but failed to mention that Joan demanded to be treated as John during puberty. Read about it. Get educated! Read Dr. Milton Diamond's research on the intersex.

You're all scientists, correct? So lets see some real science instead of discomfort and cultural bias.

By the by, circumcision became popular as an hygienic cut during WW II during the offensive against Rommel in the desert. Lack of water caused terrible penile infestations which were solved by circumcision.

But learning to clean under your foreskin seems considerably less painful and final than cutting the thing off.

Posted by: abb3w | June 18, 2010 2:12 PM

What, no mentions of hyena morphology?

Posted by: tutone21 | June 18, 2010 2:15 PM

Jules:

And I don't just mean liberal feminist men. I've gone out with a few (a very, very few) frat boys in my day, and they honestly didn't care that I don't look like a porn star. They were practical and realistic in their expectations of a sex partner.

Being a "frat boy" and a former Marine I can tell you that I don't give a shit about this and I can't think of one other friend that prizes this in a partner.

What I find problematic is that there are 2 angles that a Dr. has to approach the parents. The first is the public perception angle, to which I would say, "Go fuck yourself." The second though is that the procedure is being recommended by a Dr. and this is a profession that is the end-all-be-all in trust. Most of the people I know blindly trust Dr. opinions and will do whatever is recommended. If Dix is telling these people that they should do this to their children then I would say a large number of parents are going to have it done. HE needs to be held accountable for this!

And, the fucking Dr. gets to tell the hospital that he performed another billable procedure. I am getting madder and madder by the minute. Thank you Dix Poppas. You ruined my Thursday afternoon and now my Friday! Fucking Asshats!!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 18, 2010 2:20 PM

@irenedelse:

You don't know if it works until you conducted clinical trials.

But. . but. . . Western Ways of Knowing™ can't validate our alternative, natural, warm, cuddly, Wise, Eastern Ways of Knowing!!11!!! Every time a clinical trial is performed, a chakra dies!

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | June 18, 2010 2:35 PM

@tutone21

You make a fine point. The doctor should be held accountable for his behavior in recommending surgery, especially considering his status as a leading pediatric urologist. New parents are often confused and scared and can be easily bullied (even unintentionally so) by someone they view as an expert, especially if said expert leads them to believe their child's life will be ruined otherwise.

However, it seems that there must be some people out there who plainly saw how wrong this is and turned him down, even if he is an authority. At least, I hope that is the case.

Once again we are reminded that there is a serious need in this society to teach people to think critically and not rely solely on authority.

As to fratboys, the ones I know value a woman's personality above her looks, although there is a lot of variation in how much looks matter and what they want those looks to be. Just like most humans.

It's strange to me that the lowest common denominator in character is so often held up as the standard for either sex. Few of us are actually that shallow (though we all have our moments).

Posted by: otrame | June 18, 2010 2:40 PM

Yes, I have the same emotional reaction to the mutilation of health bodily structures in little kids as most of you (the rest can go fuck themselves). I think that what PAISerenty said:

surgeons see the solution to most problems as being related to a scalpel -- that's how they solve a wealth of other problems, so why wouldn't they solve this one the same way? I get - I even appreciate - that these surgeons are (usually) working from a position of wanting to help, and it is just that their experience in how to help is biased by other work. They don't listen to the people who have gone through what they are doing and there is the biggest problem.

Which is why the rest of the staff are supposed to
provide some balance. In this situation? Failure all around. If the little girls in question have issues with blockage of the opening of the urethra or vagina then that should be corrected. Leave the rest until they are at least teens. And teach them that "different" isn't bad. Hell, teach everyone that. Ignorance is never bliss and spreading information should be the prime goal of... well, everybody.

I'd like to think the parents involved aren't as self-serving as (for example) a case I saw on TV where the parents of a Down's syndrome kid had him go through plastic surgery at about 3 to make him LOOK less like he had Down's syndrome. There was a lot of talk about protecting him from judgmental people, etc. I wanted to protect him from his parents and his doctors. Poor kid. And he still looked like he had Down's syndrome after all of that.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/0E1OCJ5_s9YwsQFm15ixpmKvACRHJiE-#457ec | June 18, 2010 3:10 PM

I have a 4 year old daughter. I can't imagine doing this to her no matter how big her clit was! The only reason I would consider it is if the doctor told me it had to be done while she was young or the damage would be worse when she was older and that it wasn't just cosmetic surgery it was to correct a real heath problem. I think this doctor must be misleading the parents.

My daughter recently had a wart on her knee that some kids started teasing her about. When I took her to the doctor and he said he could remove it, she cried because "it is part of me". So we didn't remove it (if she doesn't mind the teasing why go through the pain?). Now imagine trying to convince her to get part of her "weewee" removed? I doubt she or any other girl her age would actually agree to the procedure, so the parents and doctor are forcing their daughters against their will for cosmetic reasons only!
poor girls :(

Posted by: Thomathy | June 18, 2010 3:39 PM

We can call it the 'Law of Genital Mutilation' and it can be referred to as committing a 'Genitalverstümmelung' because the German works so much better.

For instance, 'This thread is sogoing to be Genitalverstümmelunged.'

Or not. We can call it 'Dick's Law', though we know that it's employed by assholes.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 18, 2010 3:47 PM

It happens so often, we could probably use a shorthand way of referring to the phenomenon.

How about "discussion interrupted (by) pretentious shitbags hell-bent (on) idealizing their schlongs", or DIPSHITS.

Posted by: Michael Korn | June 18, 2010 3:56 PM

What is the right size for a clitoris?

How about the size of PZM’s head?

That would make him a hermaphrodite, since he already is a dickhead.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2010 4:00 PM

What is the right size for a clitoris?

How about the size of PZM’s head?

That would make him a hermaphrodite, since he already is a dickhead.

Holy Shit.

Kook alert!!

Posted by: Pitini | June 18, 2010 4:04 PM

I try not to but it is when I read something like this that I want to hate some of my fellow humans. How can people think that this can be okay? The children treated this way will grow up to hate their own parents when they find out what has been done to them.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 4:11 PM

Let me try that with blockquotes:

KOPD:

How about "discussion interrupted (by) pretentious shitbags hell-bent (on) idolizing their schlongs", or DIPSHITS.

Hmmm, that rather ruins the all purposeness of 'dipshit' though. With a couple of changes, we have:

DICKSHITS. Discussion Interrupted [by] Cocky Knobs Hellbent [on] Idolizing Their Schlongs.

Posted by: Michael Korn | June 18, 2010 4:18 PM

"What a stunning insight into the problem of unnecessary genital surgeries on little girls!"

i am not in favor of FGC.

however, in the case of PZM, i would support a radical cranioctomy.

don't stop with his clit; go for the entire urogenital tract perched atop his neck.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 4:24 PM

Michael Korn:

however, in the case of PZM,

You're a fucking troll with an axe to grind. You're also attempting to derail this thread. So go fuck yourself sideways, Michael. You are now entering the Kill File Zone. Bye now.

Posted by: Michael Korn | June 18, 2010 4:37 PM

i'm not derailing anything.

if you don't believe God created man and woman, then why do you care who mutilates whom?

what kind of fake morality do you subscribe to?

the morality of Dawkins is that of a coward who says, if i am mean and nasty to others, they might do it back to me. so let's support various liberal causes.

but the real basis of morality is to respect that which belongs to Someone Else, namely to God the Creator.

if you don't believe in Him then you have neither logical nor ethical grounds to protest how others might abuse the random and purposeless products of Dawkins' "blind watchmaker".

that's why it's highly relevant to point out that atheistic dickheads really should not be pontificating about clitorectomies or anything else related to human morality.

Posted by: Michael Korn | June 18, 2010 4:40 PM

Dawkins' "blind watchmaker" is really Dawkins the blind wanker...

Posted by: tutone21 | June 18, 2010 4:45 PM

Holy shit this guy is an idiot.

Isn't it a bit of a conundrum that "we" don't believe in a god and yet "we" are able to realize that this behavior is wrong. And why is it that Christians/religious people think that people need a "treat" to be nice to one another? "Be good and God will like you!"

And, you fucking idiot, if people are made in god's image then why is it okay to slice up a woman's organs? Didn't god do that on purpose?

Can someone please teach me this kill file thing? I am looking online, but I am a Chemist and HATE programming.

Posted by: Endor | June 18, 2010 4:49 PM

"And why is it that Christians/religious people think that people need a "treat" to be nice to one another?"

which, they don't do anyways. Religion is merely a self-soothing mechanism for people who are selfish and/or dumb. Korn here can spew a bunch of unhinged bigoted horseshit and be convinced he'll still get into heaven because all he has to do is say 'sorry god!' before he kicks it. That's religious "morality" for you. Do whatever you like and pretend to be sorry and you'll get cookies!

Posted by: Kamaka | June 18, 2010 4:58 PM

what kind of fake morality do you subscribe to?

I'm confused. The bible is a bunch of made-up shit that is amoral in the extreme.

How can someone who buys the god nonsense claim morals based on reason and empathy are somehow fake?

Go crawl back into your irrational hole.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 5:02 PM

Sigh, why do idjits like Korn never present any solid physical evidence for their imaginary deity? They just themselves to be delusionsal fools, and mental wankers, more ways than one....
/rhetorical.

Posted by: AJS | June 18, 2010 5:04 PM

Can I weigh in with an observation here? It seems that certain people here are forgetting that we are all on the same side.

What we have here is a classic divide-and-rule situation: A happens and is bad; B happens and is disputedly worse; therefore, everybody concentrates on whether or not B is as bad as A and ignores the fact that A and B are still happening.

All childhood genital mutilation is bad -- I don't think anybody here is disputing that.

But this thread was originally supposed to be a discussion of one particular kind of childhood genital mutilation, being performed to reinforce a social divide. Yes, there are other kinds of childhood genital mutilation, performed for reasons that no longer apply since we have decent sanitation and running water, and yes, they may be as bad. But this is beside the point.

There are many injustices in the world, but they can only be fought one-by-one. And right here, in this thread, one particular injustice is being fought. Nobody has forgotten about the ones that will still be there when this one is laid to rest. We will work on them one day -- but for that we need allies, not more enemies.

Or, it's no good fighting over who's the True Scotsman while the English are burning down the village.

Kyle N:

Also, I know intersexed people. I know one who goes as male most of the time but then "crossdresses" as a woman on special occasions.

Posted by: Sal Bro | June 18, 2010 5:07 PM

Caine, Fleur du mal:

He's worse than that, he's a certified kook.

That article mentions that he was on the lam. Do you know if the authorities ever caught up to him?

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | June 18, 2010 5:13 PM

#334

Where their morality is: "if I am mean and nasty to others, GOD may do it back to me."

Nah! simpler...more like "if I am mean and nasty to others, GOD will forgive me cos I does it for 'bhabi jeebus'"

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 5:18 PM

Sal Bro I:

That article mentions that he was on the lam. Do you know if the authorities ever caught up to him?

No clue. He seems to have dropped off the radar for a while. It's too bad his former blog is gone, you had to see the kooky - different fonts, colours, foaming at the mouth...

The dipshit sent me another e-mail, titled 'slicing up females'. Hey, you stupid fucking kook - I'm not reading them, they go straight into the trash.

Rey Fox:

Where their morality is: "if I am mean and nasty to others, GOD may do it back to me."

No, their morality is "I can do whatever I want and get forgiven; and if I pray hard enough, GOD will indulge me and smite those motherfuckers I hate so much!"

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 5:22 PM

Yahoomess:

Hey Nerd of Redhead OM, you are a familiar troll. The other trolls (including Irenedelse) have no facts about the subject either. Josh, you are wrong.

You are the troll here. Now, please, go fuck yourself sideways with the rusty implement of your choice. I'm sure you'll have some nice herbs to take care of the damage.

Oh, and as it seems you haven't gotten the message: You're a quack and you're wrong.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 18, 2010 5:36 PM

Thomathy @ 302, Caine, Fleur du mal OM @ 303 and 312, KOPD @ 304;

All excellent suggestions, but how to choose between them?

We should put it to the Pharyngulite horde methinks!

Posted by: tutone21 | June 18, 2010 5:39 PM

... Furthermore, naturopathic physicians who are licensed in the U.S. get MORE training in basic sciences than do MD or DO. That is fact. There is plenty of evidence for the superiority of the BIHT I can prescribe in India over the allopathic horsepiss...

I here this same argument from Chiroprators and Accupuncturists. Thanks, but you can keep your oatmeal bath treatments and dandelion root cancer cures. You are a Charleton. Sell crazy somewhere else. I don't want to speak for everyone, but from what I have read we are full up on crazy here.

And why don't you stay on topic. No one wants to give you a job here and we don't need your resume. If you feel the need to comment, then have something to add to the conversation.

Do I need to remind people that India also claims to have a man that hasn't eaten in like 80 years and his claim has been authenticated by an certified "physician." Not that our healthcare is the greatest in the U.S.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 5:40 PM

have no facts about the subject either.

My degree is recognized by the govt. of India as any medical degree.

I studied the same traditional subjects, physiology, anatomy, pathology, OB-GYN, forensic med, internal medicine, toxicology, social and community med, as any MD or DO does in the U.S.

I can prescribe in India

It is an alternative medicine in India.

There is also plenty of evidence that some Chinese medicines are more effective than many Western medicines.

A real doctor again is a PhD. An MD, DO, ND, MB BS, DPM, DC DDS, OD are professional degrees-technically they are NOT real doctors.

There is a push to include CAM now in

The ignorance of these trolls is astounding.

often come with misrepresentations of facts.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 18, 2010 5:47 PM

Googlemess @ 336;

Hey Nerd of Redhead OM, you are a familiar troll.

Nerd of Redhead, OM is a regular here whom I (for one) have the upmost respect for.

You, on the other hand, are a ranting burk who is incapable of telling the difference between sympathetic magic and actual medicine.*

You are also the one who turned up hell bent on indignantly derailing the thread over a perceived slight to your professional standing... as a glorified witch-doctor.

So, who is the troll again? It is easy really. You have two options. It is either Nerd, or you. I will even give you a clue; it is not Nerd....

*Here's a hint; if there are no credible, scientifically valid, peer reviewed studies establishing the efficacy of a form of treatment, then it is woo, not medicine. You might as well be intoning magic incantations for all the good you are doing.

Posted by: Classical Cipher | June 18, 2010 5:57 PM

Cerberus @189 and Ol'Greg @256,
Those posts were both amazing and thought-provoking, and I thank you heartily for them. I was unhappily scrolling through Yet Another FGM Thread (Don't get me wrong, I do realize this is an extremely important issue, and I'm glad it's addressed on this blog, but it just makes me so damn weary and sad every time I hear about it. I only keep reading because I think it is so important.) and your posts made me think about things in a better, more structured way. I'll be sure to keep voting for you for Mollies, as you both well deserve them for those posts.
I don't have anything real to say, because it's all been said already. This is just heartbreaking.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 18, 2010 6:00 PM

skatje: i guess i'm just trying to weigh actions based on what will likely be the most beneficial ... i wasn't clear before on how risky it was, but yeah, it looks like it's a complete failure. given this, then yeah, let them decide when they're older and weigh how they want to look against greatly ruining their sensitivity.

An example of hyper-rationality -- it's a disease.

Many choices are precisely that -- choices. Unless you can show a clear, extreme and practically universal cost or benefit, you leave it to choice, to subjective preference.

And when it's choice -- the choice should be the person going under the knife, not their guardians or medical "experts".

There's no damn accounting sheet for "genital size". It's not a scientific question, unless you can show obvious, unquestionable harm. There are too many damn variables, the interactions are too complex to say anything in most cases -- giving an average and a standard deviation tells you less than nothing -- it's fake knowledge.

This kind of thinking has lead to many atrocities in the world -- spreadsheet rationality about complex judgments.

Spreadsheet rationality ("we'll just add up costs and benefits with a few weights") is a false rationality, just as much as an oversimplified rationality that thinks it's all one or two variables (see Libertarianism, Marxism, etc). Rationality needs to include a calculation of ignorance, and a recognition of our vast ignorance in terms of 99% of what we actually do.

It's fuckin' hard to write an operating system that doesn't fail regularly. And some folks think they can engineer minds! Engineering bodies cosmetically is exactly that. I'm less afraid of some of the religious nutcases than some hyperrationalists -- at least the religious nutcases are too irrational to succeed regularly at blowing themselves up.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 6:02 PM

n most states (exception may be California) in the U.S. which license DOs and NDs, they absolutely may call themselves a physician.

You obviously need to take more coursework in your english reading skills.

NOWHERE in the US is a doctor of naturopathy or homeopathy allowed to call themselves "doctor" sans the homeopath/naturopath title.

moreover, the license given to these people is nothing more or less than a STANDARD BUSINESS LICENSE. They have no ability to prescribe medication, they have no rights to treat patients in hospitals as physicians, in short, they simply do NOT have a license to practice medicine.

so, sorry, but somewhere along the line you managed to project how it works in India (which is perhaps the most fucked up medical establishment in the modern world), with what goes on in the US.

IOW...

Epic Fail.

Posted by: alysonmiers | June 18, 2010 6:04 PM

@ButchKitties #352:

"What is often expressed and understood by the term 'gender,' is definitively resolved in the self-emancipation of the human being from creation and the Creator. Man wants to create himself, and to decide always and exclusively on his own about what concerns him." - Poop Benedict

Is Papa Ratzi trying to make this sound like a bad thing? He fails at it. Decide always and exclusively on your own about what concerns you? Sounds good to me!

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 6:06 PM

But this thread was originally supposed to be a discussion of one particular kind of childhood genital mutilation,

right.

... being performed to reinforce a social divide.

wrong.

nuff said.

bye bye.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 18, 2010 6:14 PM

Caine you are the quack and you are wrong AND clueless. Nerd of Redhead lost the argument before "they" started. "They" don't know anything about the facts of doctors and physicians and what constitutes real medicine or what the law about this or the necessary reasons behind it..."they"
are wrong about everything "they" wrote.
Again, there is PLENTY of peer reviewed evidence for the effectivenss of BIHT, osteopathy, and many Chinese medicines...and you are the no-wit... even atheists know that anyone can be called Dr. in the U.S. with a donation to the school of your choice LOL...you're all "mouth" with no relevant evidence...you are the troll....
at least I know you were playing....because a naturopathic physician is a physician in the DOT and because after all we don't need to go to the DOT to know that a bunghole reamer is in there either or what it actually is....

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 6:34 PM

Yahoomess:

Caine you are the quack and you are wrong AND clueless.

I'm not the one running around calling myself a doctor, you dimwit. I'm not wrong. For one thing, I live in the United States, I was born here. I'm fully aware of how laws operate here. For another thing, they don't operate here the same way they do in India. Thank the universe for that one, too.

even atheists know that anyone can be called Dr. in the U.S. with a donation to the school of your choice

Oh for fuck's sake, is there no end to your idiocy? That is not true, dipshit. What I think you're talking about is an honorary doctorate. It doesn't mean shit - you don't get to run around calling yourself doctor, nor do you get to play one.

No one in the United States is allowed to call him/herself a Doctor of Medicine unless they have the requisite degree. You can look up the laws for yourself, you fucking idiot. Then again, I doubt you have the brains.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 18, 2010 6:35 PM

Icthyic@219: In women with the classic syndrome, this can means an enlarged clitoris, fusion of the labia and improper development of the vagina. It can be severe enough that the clitoris can resemble a penis and become engorged and develop erections, just like a male penis.

There is debate as to how to treat this syndrome. I don't know much, because I'n not in urology or in pediatrics and therefore, never see it. This seems to be a good review article discussing some of the controversy with treatment, especially considering surgery and reconstruction, one of the reasons because they don't know how it's going to effect their sexual function as they get older

See, this is the kind of pseudo-rationalism that I object to. There's a declared "disease" (adrenal gland production outside of the ? standard deviations), so therefore everything outside of x standard deviations must be eliminated. But this is in the face of systems that don't fall under normal distributions, that don't involve a few independent variables but many co-dependent variables, that are essentially unpredictable given almost any amount of knowledge!

The arrogance is astounding. The lack of awareness of ignorance is astounding. And the person icthyic is quoting seems to think of herself as so terribly more "rational" than Joe Random Commenter, when they and Poppas are essential irrational by ignoring their own ignorance of systemic behavior. No amount of scientific studies is every going to tell us "this clitoris is too large and can be safely removed". Short of clear physiological harm, you'd have to simulate the person's entire life to actually make a rational decision there.

Therefore, anyway you cut it, you're making an irrational decision. Irrational decisions should be left to the person it most affects. Many, if not most, of our life decisions are done in such ignorance. We can try to put a rational envelope around it -- but how we feel is mostly irrational.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 18, 2010 6:40 PM

"They" don't know anything about the facts of doctors and physicians and what constitutes real medicine or what the law about this or the necessary reasons behind it..."they"
are wrong about everything "they" wrote.

It does not matter if it is writen in 50 foot tall, burning letters that;

" THIS IS THE LAW, AND THE LAW SAYETH THAT GOOGLEMESS IS TOO A DOCTOR, AND THAT NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE CONSTITUTES REAL MEDICINE, EVERY BIT AS REAL AS THAT SCIENCEY STUFF!"

It would not make 'alternative' medicine any less snake oil, nor you any less of a charlatan preying on the ignorance of the vulnerable.

Just because certain socities with... unusual attitudes toward medical science pass laws to the effect that naturopathic medicine should be placed on a par with scientifically validated medical treatment does not automatically confer the status of a universal truth on that statement, it merely establishes that the laws in that country are somewhat behind the times, and that the society in question is a haven for crooks and sheisters.

Posted by: AJS | June 18, 2010 6:41 PM

In what way is "correcting" someone's genitals not reinforcing a social divide?

Posted by: aebrain | June 18, 2010 6:46 PM

I recognise that quote from His Holiness. The quote is from his speech to the Curia at Christmas 2008. Here's more:

(The Church) must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood.

If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work.

Or worse, since this one came from the Pope's speech to the Vatican Diplomatic Corps in the New Year:

To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism. Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.

Recently, the American Catholic Bishops wrote a letter to legislators:

We write to you regarding the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 3017, and Senate (S. 1584). Our purpose is to outline the serious concerns we have with these bills in their current form and why we cannot maintain the position of neutrality we held in 2007.

The bill’s treatment of “gender identity,” which was not in the 2007 bill, would have an adverse effect on privacy and associational rights of others.

These are all parts of a complete picture. But for IS people, the most important issue is to stop the genital mutilation of infants. In some cases, early surgical intervention is needed to ensure urinary continence and relieve pain. These are exceptions though. Most surgery is purely for cosmetic reasons - which may involve surgical assignment to an arbitrary sex, regardless of the compromise of fertility or sensation.

In defence of the Catholic Church.. they are opposed to this kind of mutilation too, officially. At the moment. That may change as the result of the Pope's statements.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 18, 2010 6:52 PM

Re: all the hate for the quack.

Most quacks crime is under-treatment -- doing nothing efficacious in the face of evidence (mostly). Most non-quacks crime (back on-thread) is over-treatment -- doing something dangerous in the face of lack of meaningful evidence.

I'm not sure who I'd rather have treating me -- someone who fails to treat me, or someone who goes ahead with treatment I don't need. The latter sounds more dangerous to me.

Sure, give me the old tried & true treatments -- vaccines for measles, cut out my tumors, set my broken legs. Simple things with simple solutions. But stay away from me with your relative lipid concoctions, your case management voodoo, and all your preventative prescriptions where 2 years is considered a "long-term study", where your average tells me nothing about how this particular biological system (me!) will react.

That's not scientific medicine at all, any more than using the average position of the earth and mars is a scientific basis for calculating a rocket trajectory between them. In those cases, I'd rather have a useless quack giving me a back rub to a dangerous "scientist" feeding me pills.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 6:54 PM

AJS:

In what way is "correcting" someone's genitals not reinforcing a social divide?

The only place it's about "reinforcing a social divide" is in your moronic head. Now, after having the nerve to lecture us on tone, you're going to lecture us on what this surgery is really all about? Stuff it. Sideways.

What this is about is attempting to slice and dice little girls genitals into some imaginary ideal. Full stop.

Posted by: tutone21 | June 18, 2010 6:56 PM

In defence of the Catholic Church.. they are opposed to this kind of mutilation too, officially. At the moment. That may change as the result of the Pope's statements.

Good for them! Way to be Catholics!! Now, what is your position on fondeling infant genitals?

And I am still confused on how an instution can claim people are created in god's image and then grasp the authority to slice up a person should it be intersex. That is psychotic!!

Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM | June 18, 2010 6:58 PM

Holy crap, holy crap. I'm in the middle of Real Life and can't do more now than post this link. Will return later in the evening.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1996453,00.html

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 18, 2010 7:01 PM

Walton @ 368;

I don't know why some men get so worked up about it. :-/

I think it might be because for some men, their entire identity is tied up with their perception of their penis. It is quite simply the most important thing to them. They fixate over its relative size compared to other examples of the beast, over its shape and every aspect of its function. An entire industry has been built up around the male obsession with the phallus.

Many of these men not only consider their penis to be the most important thing in their lives, but are so utterly self-obsessed that they assume that it must also be the most important thing in everyone else's lives as well. If not their personal penis, then the penis in general.

Not having a penis necessarily excludes you from the club of self-indulgent phallus-gazing, and so the genital wellbeing of women is considered of secondary importance at best, the logic being;

"Who cares about some woman's horrible, life destroying mutilation? There is relatively minor modification of pee-pees going on! An assault on the penis is an assault on manliness! Oh, woe is me! Society must surely collapse in burning ruin now that the mighty shaft it is built upon has been thusly defiled!"

For the non-circumcising theist, it might be even worse. God is supposedly a bloke, after all, so it may be assumed that he has some kind of divine penis with a halo around the glans. So an assault upon the penis of man, created in the image of the greater penis of god, is an assault on god himself... or something. Divine wrath must surely follow...

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 18, 2010 7:12 PM

Random aside from the Mr (regarding the hijacking of this thread):

"Come on, you've got to expect trolls at this point. That guy probably can't see past his own neck beard."

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 7:15 PM

Cerberus:

And for those who want an update, the World Cup, hanging out with folks and the like have really calmed me down. I'm much less, gyaah, than I was last night.

Oh good. Glad to hear it. In case you missed it, me and Brownian gave you hugses in the jibberjabber endless thread. They still hold. :)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 7:15 PM

don't deserve a response as they are not open to sound reason or reality

Epic Fail.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | June 18, 2010 7:20 PM

To make absolutely clear:

The degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, abbreviated as BM BS (or MB ChB, BM BCh, etc.) is the standard professional medical degree in Britain, Ireland and most Commonwealth countries, including India. Although it is technically a bachelor's degree, it is equivalent to the North American MD, and the holder is a real medical doctor and is entitled to call him- or herself "Doctor" in professional practice.

The Yahoomess above may well be a quack, but the BM BS is a real medical degree and is, indeed, the standard medical degree in most of the English-speaking world apart from the US and Canada.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 7:24 PM

Cerberus:

That's horrifying shit that's even all about the mighty penis. It would be the perfect place to go.

You're not kidding it's horrifying. It's the stuff of nightmares and most people are completely ignorant on the subject.

I can't help thinking about all the people born when I was ('57). I turned 5 years old in '62. No one would have thought twice about carving up a kid then; what's so damn difficult to take is that this crap is still going on.

My clitoris and labia are larger than "normal" and I'm so grateful no one thought to subject me to surgical carving.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | June 18, 2010 7:25 PM

Serenity #271,

You wrote neither too late, nor too early. Whatever your or my deviance from the norm, we remain human beings.

All my love,

Franklin.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 18, 2010 7:29 PM

Googlemess quack,

This is not a thread about alternate medicine or whatever silly nonsense you're pushing. We're discussing real world situations, not whether or not you can call yourself a doctor.

Either discuss the matter at hand or go to the Endless Thread™ if you want to keep talking about your "medical" something or other.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 18, 2010 7:30 PM

I think the problem with Yahoomess is twofold. First, he's a health care provider, possibly using both allopathic and woo-ish techniques, possibly doing harm due to undertreatment. We do not know whether Yahoomess is a danger to his particular patients or whether he knows and uses enough real sciencey medicine to help them. I am not totally unsympathetic to the alternative/complementary care stuff, as I think that it can provide some human interaction placebo stuff that is potentially valuable. (As Lewis Thomas said once, the most important thing we should be investigating is how the placebo response actually works. Then we could just do that and skip the herbs/needle poking/reiki type stuff.)

Second, and most importantly, Yahoomess is derailing the thread into a discussion of whether he's a doctor or not, when what we're attempting to discuss are the ethics of clitoral surgery on infant girls. Whether Yahoomess is a doctor or not is completely irrelevant to a discussion of whether Upper East Side Manhattan physicians should be in the business of chopping out bits of baby girls' clits.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 7:34 PM

Nerd, you have lost.

the standard medical degree in most of the English-speaking world apart from the US and Canada.

vitamin C treatments are not curative for scurvy.

Being called doctor doesn't mean much.

is not a real doctor.

Posted by: Kamaka | June 18, 2010 7:38 PM

How admirable your sacrifice.

Your sarcasm meter needs a bit of readjustment.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 18, 2010 7:40 PM

Who even says these little girls are all straight anyway. Who knows how they'd be left on their own to be themselves.

I'm just suddenly aware of how we've been viewing all of their potential relations as being male/female and it makes me even sadder.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 7:44 PM

1madrad:

Because a big ol' clit shouldn't get in the way of YOUR goal, which is sticking your dick in! How admirable your sacrifice.

I think you're off the point a bit here. The earlier discussion involved someone defending these types of surgeries because a girl with a large clitoris would freak a boy out and that would, therefor, be a damaging experience for the girl. Now I can't find the post you're quoting (helpful hint, include the name of who you are quoting), but his point was that as a teen first embarking on sexual experiences, he wouldn't have been put off by a "chick with a dick".

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 18, 2010 7:45 PM

I am not yet a father, but if one day I was to father or be otherwise responsible a child, whether intersex of otherwise, and a doctor was to come along and say;

"Well, your child's genitals do not conform to the norm, so I think we should start carving them some proper genitals, stat!"

I would have to count to ten very slowly to avoid doing something to that doctor that I would regret.* I sure as hell wouldn't go along with it, still less demand that the procedure be performed on the child myself.

* I will not describe here exactly what I might be tempted to do. Impressionable young people like Walton are reading this, after all... ;-p

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 7:49 PM

Gregory Greenwood:

I once heard the clitoris described as;

"The heart of the lady-flower"

If that is any better. It strikes me as a bit... weird, but at least it is not openly misogynistic and does not treat the female genitalia as nothing other than something that exists solely for the appreciation and gratification of men.

My preference is velvet. As in tipping the...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 7:54 PM

1madrad:

Masturbate refers to sexually stimulating YOURSELF.

That's one definition. There's mutual masturbation, etc. It's getting tiresome correcting you.

Try saying something cogent about the post, rather than attempting to nitpick other people's comments. You aren't on track with that.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 18, 2010 7:59 PM

Tim @402 addendum

But yes, it's damn hard to hear from trans people and to get our voices out there especially in culture.

For intersex people it is orders of magnitude harder with it being difficult to even get a decent wide-release book of their experiences.

I'm very grateful to the intersex people who have recorded their hirstories and those who have commented on blogs I have read including the two who commented earlier this thread.

It shows bravery to speak in a vacuum, but is so often necessary to educate. It's why I've tried to do the best I can to advocate and educate on their behalf (to the extremely limited range of my ability) this thread.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 18, 2010 8:00 PM

Caine, 1madrad is referring to this

broboxley here

Who was replying to Skatje's:

i'm just going to say that yes, a teenage boy running away screaming "ewww! gross!"

And yes, I don't think that's how he meant it. Rather I think he was trying to say that the argument that guys won't put up with it doesn't fit his memory of being a guy :P

Posted by: Azkyroth | June 18, 2010 8:03 PM

Also: Doesn't it frost anyone else's cupcakes that the clitoris is referred to as "the little MAN in the boat"? For crying out loud.

Well, if one insists on anthropomorphizing it, the "person" in the "boat" generally appears to be bald...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 8:03 PM

Ol'Greg, thank you. Given that it was Broboxley, that does explain his awkwardness in explaining, but yes, it was innocent enough.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 18, 2010 8:08 PM

Caine @418

The little Sinead O' Connor in the boat.

Posted by: Marek | June 18, 2010 8:10 PM

As long as they both enjoy the size of the clitoris,
this is the right size.

e

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 18, 2010 8:16 PM

Greenwood and Mattir, It is a real legitimate medical degree that I have. It is an MB BS and it is in alternative medicine. But the problem is that you are confusing what is alternative in the U.S. with what is alternative in India. Osteopathy
is alternative medicine in India, although kind of traditional in the U.S. BIHT seeks to use what is bioidentical in the body as opposed to the synthetic stuff used by allopaths. BIHT have an exact "fit" to the receptors (in molecular terms)
and they are actual, real, human hormones unlike the stuff that is popular amongst allopaths such as the synthetic hormones. There is nothing "laying on hands quackery" about this.
It is real hormones. It just can't be patented.
The exact molecular "fit" makes more sense (scientifically). The lit. review confirms its superiority over the synthetics. There are plenty of Chinese medicines which have been shown to be effective (some more effective than allopathic pharmaceuticals) with the comparison of each of these with actual placebos. Of course, the placebo effect is usually controlled for by the fact that the subject doesn't know whether they are taking an allopathic pill, a Chinese medicine
pill, or a sugar pill.

Posted by: Kamaka | June 18, 2010 8:18 PM

Cerberus @ 408

freak accident of nature

Hmmm, I know what you mean here. But something that happens so regularly is hardly a "freak of nature", and it is positively criminal that society at large condones the perception.

I see this as a biological gradient, (let's keep it female) from "lipstick lesbians" to boyish lesbians, to aggressively(?) masculine females. Ambiguous gender identity also grades into ambiguous genitalia, perhaps more complicated, but hardly worthy of approbrium.

I don't get it. So what?

Aack! Bring out the scalpel? God's will must be involved.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 8:20 PM

OurDeadSelves:

I've yet to come across a suitable slang term for female masturbation.

Rubbing the velvet.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | June 18, 2010 8:28 PM

Never mind what a cunt looks like, at whatever age, the only person who has the right to fiddle with it, consent to have it fiddled with, or have it altered in any way, is the proprietor; never mind age, never mind puffiness, never mind labia that dangle by the knees, never mind this,that,or the other,never mind a clit that looks like a dick, either. Did I hear someone ask of bilateral symmetry? I offer you the liver and the gastro-imtestinal tract.

Our bodies belong to us, pure and simple. When will the rest of the human race appreciate this simple fact?

Posted by: 1madrad | June 18, 2010 8:31 PM

No, Caine @403, the commenter stated that if a man (lesbians don't exist either, I guess) can't get past the clit down to that warm silky moistness below, he's a moron! And that a "2-inch" clit never stopped the commenter from getting to the vadge!

But thanks for the mansplanation anyway.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 18, 2010 8:32 PM

Rubbing the velvet is definitely a keeper term - so much more apt than the various borrowed-from-the-guys terms.

Not interested in providing more trollbait - little girl bits are the issue under discussion and alternative medicine is as OT as the peepee whinges.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 8:38 PM

OurDeadSelves:

That sounds so nice. So... Victorian.

It is Victorian. :D Just don't use it around a deer hunter, they won't get it.

Posted by: Classical Cipher | June 18, 2010 8:46 PM

@1madrad
Pretty sure that every definition of "mansplanation" I've ever heard requires that the mansplainer is a man.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | June 18, 2010 8:48 PM

Sorry to be be so prosaic and tiresome, but if I may return to the thread; we owe a duty of care to the vulnerable from which we cannot abdicate.

Senseless mutilation of others is just wrong.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 18, 2010 8:54 PM

1madrad: No, Caine @403, the commenter stated that if a man (lesbians don't exist either, I guess) can't get past the clit down to that warm silky moistness below, he's a moron! And that a "2-inch" clit never stopped the commenter from getting to the vadge!

Yes, you idiot -- that was the point in the context, that even explanations about how men won't like the funny looking pussy doesn't hold water. It's not misogynist -- it was on point. It was skatje and others who were arguing that it could be psychologically traumatizing for the teenager to upset her first boyfriend.

But thanks for the mansplanation anyway.

Wow that's obnoxiously stupid. Do you even know what that term means? No, not every time that someone explains something to a clear idiot is it a "mansplanation" -- no one with a lick of sense assumes someone else's gender by blog postings. I have no idea of "Cain's" even claimed gender, and less so of his/her actual gender, or your gender. No one was "mansplaining" a damn thing to you -- they were making it simple for you because of your clearly evident intellectual insufficiency to understand context.

And as further evidence of that insufficiency, you explain it as a gendered interaction!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 18, 2010 8:59 PM

1madrad

Context is important.

"if a young teenage man doesnt discover the warm silkiness right underneath and gets to wonderfully explore then get some action and runs away screaming, he already has a penchant for non chicks with dicks. Its been 40 years since I was 15 and I still remember anything that looked reasonably female that I had a vague shot at was swimmingly beautiful a 2 incher might have got in the way, but it wouldnt have slowed me down at all."

Was said in response to Skatje's comment that teenage boys would be freaked out by a big clit.

It's not like he just offered that gem up apropos of nothing, or assumed the important thing was whether guys would like it. Some one said they wouldn't and, although it came off clumsily, I think all he was trying to say was that from what he recalls of being an aroused teen boy with a willing partner that in the heat of the sexual moment he wouldn't be put off by it so much.

Got in the way isn't the best thing he could have said, but if I know broboxley's comments he didn't mean it quite so much as "the clit is irrelevant in sex" as "the shock of a clit that looked different than expected wouldn't have gotten in the way of an exciting opportunity to have sex with some one".

To be honest in a thread where people are being extreme assholes towards women it's probably good to make sure you're targeting the worst offenders.

For me, a rather clumsy turn of phrase just doesn't seem like that much to get worked up about.

And the day Caine offers a mansplanation for anything I'll pass out from shock.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 18, 2010 9:02 PM

However, this would be far from the first time some idiot has thought I was a man.

What?! You're not? Then last night was all just a sham. . . .

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | June 18, 2010 9:07 PM

(Does several searches... on 'find'... 'locate'...)

(Finds Antiochus at #96...)

Phew...

(/I mean, c'mon people. If this thread had got to #446 without someone pointing out the obvious potential advantage there for males possibly somewhat daunted by this aspect of the task ahead, I'd have just been very, very disappointed in the lot of you, really.)

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 18, 2010 9:08 PM

Kamaka @425

Very true.

I was more using freak accident of nature to refer how it ended up being me with the unfortunate aspect of having gender dysmorphia rather than it making me a freak of nature.

Though, to be fair, I've always believed in reclaiming positive connotations for things like "freak" or "deviant". The "normal" world as it's often defined often sucks. Has lots of bigotries, unexamined privileges, stifling conformities, miserable social structures, etc...

Most "freaks" tend to be better people on average than the people destroying themselves to try and force themselves to be something they are not and normality is often a flawed concept in and of itself because so much of biology and humanity exists in ranges and wonderful complex heterogeneity.

So yeah, just wanted to clarify that.

Posted by: Classical Cipher | June 18, 2010 9:13 PM

@Ol'Greg 443,

And the day Caine offers a mansplanation for anything I'll pass out from shock.

@Caine 444,
I was just hoping that the mistake would kind of gradually dawn on 1madrad as a result of my superficially obvious observation :P You have ruined, ruined, I tell you, all my careful situational engineering...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 9:19 PM

Angel Kaida:

You have ruined, ruined, I tell you, all my careful situational engineering...

Oh no! I'll keep my trap shut. Maybe. ;D

Josh, OSG!

But your. . .bidness . . .is silicone.

It is not! Just larger than normal. There's no need to be insulting here.

Posted by: Blixx99 | June 18, 2010 9:23 PM

Ive seen big ones. They very interesting.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 18, 2010 9:26 PM

NDs are trained to recognize when their patients need additional healthcare

Then, you must be refusing patients at the door, because a "Naturopathic Doctor" can't provide any healthcare. You're a fraud, and whether you realize it or not doesn't change that.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 18, 2010 9:30 PM

It is a real legitimate medical degree that I have. It is an MB BS and it is in alternative medicine.

“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine", I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call 'alternative medicine' that’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 18, 2010 9:49 PM

Government recognition is not empirical validation.

See: government recognition of religions as charitable organizations.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | June 18, 2010 9:57 PM

AJMilne: It would also be nice if they had a voice...nothing loud or obnoxious, but just a little tiny voice.

"Over here."

"Over here."

"Right on."

Evolution is so imperfect.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 18, 2010 10:22 PM

Gregory Greenwood (#430)

Lesbianism is not as threatening when depicted as being nothing more than a male fanatsy trope.

In my experience, this is similarly true of guy-on-guy romance/porn made for women. There are even plenty of women who claim to be pro-gay because they like guy-on-guy stuff, but who will reference themes from their romance/porn as examples of what gay men go through because they have no idea what the real life issues are. They don't get that their support for a group's equality shouldn't have any connection to how readily they can sexually objectify members of that group (or fantasy versions of the same). I find this tendency especially baffling in women since this is something we all tend to struggle with coming from men. I think it's a phenomenon that also contributes to the willingness of doctors and parents to forcibly cut down a girl's "oversized" clitoris: the limiting of our approval for variation based on what personally turns us on.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | June 18, 2010 10:28 PM

#464: Ooooooooh. Bioluminescence!

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 18, 2010 10:40 PM

Antiochus: Evolution is so imperfect.

Nope -- it's evidence of it's excellence.

You can't find it, you don't deserve it!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 18, 2010 10:48 PM

Nerd of Reddickhead of message 432, I know my terms also and BIHT, osteopathy and Chinese medicine are naturopathic medicine. They are alternative forms of medicine to allopathy and have an enormous amount of scientific evidence that supports them. There are plenty of nations who do bona fide scientific research which demonstrates that there are many effective alternatives to allopathy. The CAM NIH is not as scientific as the CAM WHO which knows this.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 11:01 PM

I know my terms

They are alternative forms of medicine

enormous amount of scientific evidence that supports them.

The CAM NIH is not as scientific

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | June 18, 2010 11:09 PM

The key is to not worry so much about the theory - which in traditional naturopathy is often pure bunkum - but look at the effects, and try to determine the active ingredients, and what the biological mechanisms are for the effects. You know, Experiment. Science.

When the latter occurs, responsible practitioners are happy to endorse a therapy and use it, and it stops being the province of the woomeisters, and becomes evidence-based medicine. Indeed, you'll find EBM isn't even that hung up on mechanism, when something is seen as being needed, and is demonstrated to work. To take the canonical example, hell, ASA was in use for decades before they figured out whyinhell it did what it did. When clinical experience provides enough evidence to weigh the potential hazards against the benefit, fine, they're in, and with good reason.

The trouble is: the woomeisters have very little (or no) interest in doing this, and sell a whole pile of spectacularly silly crap as a consequence. They hear a rumour someone somewhere thought it helped, they sell it. That said hearsay really doesn't constitute clinical evidence (or, hell, evidence of any weight whatsoever) does not so much bother them if someone's buying.

Oh, and as to the former point: there's a very good reason to worry about the 'theory', if what you're talking about is the tendency of the various 'alternative' practitioners to make up absurd, trivially obviously fanciful explanations as to why their alleged therapy allegedly works, from weird tales of realigned quanta to conveniently indetectible energy fields.

It's at one remove, yes, from what you normally think of as a causal chain here, but it's very relevant, and goes to character and intent: if someone is just making shit up about why it works, you know they'll lie about one thing, at least.

The reasonable question you should build from this is: where else do they do this? And how often? And how freely?

This goes to the real difference, I'd add, between evidence-based medicine and 'alternative': the ethos. In EBM, it is at least understood that trying not to fool yourself (nor, indeed, anyone else) is a virtue, and is expected as a professional standard. In alternative, let us say, this is rather notably less emphasized. In EBM, indeed, as in the natural sciences closest to it, contrary to the frequent easy (and false) claim made by its detractors, there is an ongoing fixation--and a healthy one--with keeping in reasonable touch with what we do not know. Just because a therapy is used for decades doesn't mean someone won't do a new study, try to get the numbers on what good it actually does versus potential harm. Newer therapies addressing scarier pathologies sometimes do get a bit of a grace period, if the general sense is it's a Hail Mary but it's all we got, but the evidence does catch up to them eventually.

Not so in 'alternative' medicine. Hell, there are still assholes out there selling laetrile. Studies schmudies. Someone's buying.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 18, 2010 11:17 PM

nerdofredhead. No, the NIH is as good or bad as Georgy Bush II let it be. You don't determine true or real science. US politics and $ doesn't
either. But most in the world know that duh? LOL/
The NIH does not carry the weight or respect as does the WHO. I am not a quack, but you may be a horse's ass LOL.I am trained in
legit medicine which is alternative to allopathy.
There is plenty of that in osteopathy, BIHT, cell therapy and Chinese med....and yes you can find that in Lancet. So go back and stick your head in the sand or elsewhere with your other friends there, because the quack is not me but the one who cuts on kids....remember many surgeons not too long ago were barbers and butchers and some still are

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 11:25 PM

Write the Indian govt. if you wish.

You are delusional or simply poorly informed.

You were wrong about NDs being able to prescribe legend drugs and even controlled drugs. So go back and stick your head in the sand.

And still no evidence...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 11:35 PM

You don't determine true or real science.

I am not a quack,

here is plenty of that in osteopathy,

So go back and stick your head in the sand

because the quack is not me

.remember many surgeons not too long ago were barbers and butchers and some still are

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 11:44 PM

https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw

dood.

shut.

the fuck.

up.

nothing you have said in any way has ANYTHING to do with this thread, all you have done is continue to spout irrelevant drivel.

you're nothing but a retarded quack!

get LOST.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 11:45 PM

Nerd of Redhead, OM:

While I always delight in your troll refutations, I don't think there's anything to be gained at this point. YahoomessQuack is being allowed its continuation of the derail, and it's apparently the type of troll who thrives on attention.

I'm going to go with ignoring the idiot, it's all its worth.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 18, 2010 11:51 PM

Write the Indian govt. if you wish.

Sigh. I did. Why don't you pay attention? One more time:

June 18, 2010

Government of India
Post Office Box 98564
Ayurvedic Way
New Delhi, India

Dear Government of India,

Fail.

Love,

SpokesGay

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2010 11:53 PM

The posters Josh, Carlie, A Noyd, and Frog, really you need to go to elem. school and learn what a placebo is.

both allopathic medications AND sugar pills.

Alternative medicine can mean alot of things.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 18, 2010 11:56 PM

Yahooquack (#477)

I am trained in legit medicine which is alternative to allopathy.

Bullshit. Alternatives to "allopathy" are, by definition, not legitimate*. And your constant argument by error-riddled assertion will never change the minds of anyone here. Yours is merely a variation on "mommy says I'm special, so there, neener neener."

Nor do you get to redefine what counts as science to suit your preferred beliefs (a habit you share with the last naturopath troll to spew avalanches of wharrgarbl on this blog).

Now go away, because this thread is not about you or how your reasons for despising Dr. Dix are superior to ours. In this one instance, you've arrived at the correct conclusion (what he's doing to these girls is bad), but it's via the wrong path; your disdain for evidence-based medicine simply leads you to despise Dr. Dix by association. And, because of that, you're missing how the actual problem is one of ethics.

....................
*In the scientific sense, not the "my government lets me" sense.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 18, 2010 11:59 PM

Cerberus:

That I am trans is how I am and I am proud of that and refuse to be ashamed, but the mental torture of gender dysmorphia?

I lost a good friend to gender dysmorphia. I'll miss her forever. (I say her, because that's what she would have wished. She didn't have the fortune to be born into a female body.) She just couldn't fucking take it anymore and decided to die before she was 21. The world lost a beautiful, intelligent, creative, wonderful person.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 19, 2010 12:02 AM

Nerd:

I'll be going to bed shortly. To dream about new barbs for our duck.

I do know you love pluckin' the ducks, Nerd. I'm not trying to put a damper on your pluckin' party, just tired of the derail.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 19, 2010 12:04 AM

There is one piece of the quackiness that is relevant to the case here -- when we see medical atrocities, is it because of an excess of "quackiness", or is it because of an incorrect understanding of reason and science?

I'm sure Poppas sees himself as a fine scientist in the oldest tradition of medical scientists. Is this crankery, or is this an error that scientific medicine has a tendency to fall into -- to see human beings as numbers, as mechanical objects that they can cut into the right shape? Weren't the eugenics programs, the military-science radiation programs on children, the atrocity that much of women's medicine was into the 70s --

-- was that cranks? Or fine scientists who made a serious logical fallacy by applying the model of non-living mechanical objects to human beings (and other organisms as well)? Who don't recognize the differences in the "knowable" between hammers and children? Who don't know that their statistics are crap?

Posted by: Tim Harris | June 19, 2010 12:12 AM

Incidentally, PZ, I'm sure you simply weren't writing as carefully as you usually do, but you do make it sound as though you are saying that if these little girls weren't patients but experimental subjects, then there would be nothing wrong with what Poppas is doing: 'after hacking their clitorises, Poppas has the children come in for checkups in which he tests the sensitivity of their genitalia with a vibrator. I must admit, when I heard that at first, I thought it was a reasonable idea - if you're doing an experiment in which you excise healthy and and well-innervated tissue, it's a good idea to carry out tests afterwards to assess your surgery, and to scientifically measure the extent of the reduction of nerve activity. It's simple scientific curiosity. But wait - these kids aren't part of a science experiment. They're patients...'
'Simple scientific curiosity' - it seems to me that Poppas possesses that quality in abundance, to the extent that it has led him into acting very wrongfully. The case - like that of Henry Harlow - suggests that 'simple scientific curiosity' is not so innocent, or so simple, a quality as it sounds.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 19, 2010 12:16 AM

frog @497

What it almost always is is the cultural bigotry fucking with the scientific integrity of the SOP.

For instance, women's health, particularly sexual health is de-emphasized in America and even seen as borderline evil. As such, the current state of OB/GYN services outside organizations such as PP tends to suck more than it should especially as compared to other medical services.

The problem is that doctors and those outlining reigning medical theory are human beings and many of those who rise to the level of being venerated also tend to be older.

And well, older human beings often carry older baggage.

The system is self-correcting in time as the old bigotries stop masking the important scientific and medical realities of situations, but in the meantime while those bigotries still cloud we still get shit like the fucking Harry-Benjamin hoops to jump through, the atrocious SOP of genital mutilation for intersex children, and asexuality listed as a mental disorder*.

We are flawed creatures always striving to improve.

*I went to a garage sale recently with my parents and stumbled across a copy of the DSM IV, so I took the opportunity to show them where I was listed until we successfully manage to change it.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 19, 2010 12:37 AM

Cerberus:

In short, fuck the conformity fetishists and long live the random heterogeneity of the human organism.

Damn right, my sister! We just have to keep fighting against the fixers. They can't die off soon enough for me, and it's going to be a long, long time before that happens. Just have to keep on fighting.

Posted by: Betelgeuse | June 19, 2010 12:56 AM

@Icthyic #448

Have lived in India all my life barring the last two years.
But yes, I am somewhat acquainted with the medical system. To the point of being highly disillusioned; and that may make me subjective in my opinion. However, warning given, I will try.

1. Fistly, with regard to a lot of what is called 'woo' medicine, yes, it is a whole lot of trusting somebody to give you a huge bunch of junk. Or so I think at most times.

I'm all for modern medicine* and absolutely against any of the woo being flagged up to compete with it or to completely REPLACE it.
But I also believe that there isn't any harm in dabbling in them alongside if the person so chooses to.

2. What these woo 'doctors' give people, lets say for example under naturopathic practices, is MOSTLY NOT something that will kill them.
Or at least not outright, unless you are allergic to some ingredient.
See Emblica officinalis on Wikipedia. Its good for you, and massively used in naturopathy. Its just 'remedies' based on simple household common sense. Like grapefruit and onions and spinach being good for you. Albeit not backed up by peer review.

I am no authority on Homoeopathy or Reiki and the like and won't comment.

With regard to the blithering person who could've made a point but made a fool of himself instead:

1. Yahoomess (was it) says he has an MBBS (the standard bachelor's degree which gets you a medical 'Doctor''s title once completed); but I'm not so sure about it being IN alternative medicine.
As far as I know, the MBBS is a standard, universal degree with no great variation.
However, you can get an MD (which is the postgraduate specialising qualification) in Alternative medicine on top of that.

http://www.indiaedu.com/career-courses/alternative-medicine-courses/

This same link also tells you that you can even get a Diploma (which is a short, one year course) or a Bachelors degree in Alt Med, without having done an MBBS.
But at the end of the day you're not a 'real' doctor, i.e. you don't have the additional backing of having learnt things the peer-reveiwed way if you go down these routes; but that's just my opinion.

2. The University Grants Commission of India, a government body set up to regulate higher education in the country has set up autonomous bodies that oversee the running of various sub-fields of medicine. One of these is the Central Council of Indian Medicine. They seem to say that if you do a bachelor's degree you get a B.something title. However they do award MDs as well for postgrad studies. Seems to be consistent so far.
The site is full of unnecessary jargon and is making my head hurt at this time in the morning, so I'll let that go with this link if you want to look things up when you have room for head-hurt:

http://ccimindia.org/index.html

3. If you do Homoeopathy, you get a BMHS degree ( B of Homoeopathy and Surgery), although I have no idea how homoeopaths become surgeons. THAT is scary. Degrees awarded by a similar to above Central Council of Homoeopathy.

http://www.hindu.com/edu/2005/03/22/stories/2005032200250300.htm

So far, all this government recognised. And in certain areas there seems to be a growing clamour for these modes of medicine because of people being overcautious about the apparent ill-effects of modern medicine.

Which brings me to my * at modern medicine above.

I am thoroughly disillusioned with the way things are in India at the moment with regard to modern medicine. This is pretty much a personal issue.
[when a person has persistent respiratory issues that refuse to be treated then the first thing you do is a LUNG SCAN, a LUNG SCAN dimwits- but of course, because that isnt so obvious to trained medical professionals at all despite repeated consults, a HUGE part of my chilhood just died from advanced TB].

You can pay to get into medical colleges, bypassing a mandatory entrance exam system. Reservations along bloody 'caste' lines open the system to even further exploitation. Students learn what they learn through their own sheer diligence and passion, or they turn into state tutored bots that go to villages and met out standard, flat analgesic treatments for any 'abdominal pain', without looking for an underlying cause. The government makes money.
The Medical Council of India makes money and needs disbanding.

http://www.medindia.net/news/indiaspecial/medical-council-of-india-the-rise-and-fall-69144-1.htm

People are unwittingly used as subjects for medical trails. Nightmareville.

The only access to proper medical treatment is if you have the money. HUGE amounts of it for better and better doctors. Or if you happen to bump into one in a million committed junior doctors.

Sigh. When this happens, I don't blame people for veering more towards woo.

Note to self: must get out of rant phase and keep highlighting examples of good modern medical pratice to keep the cause alive.

If normal medicine can revamp itself and figure itself out over the next few years then real doctors can make a case for themselves. In the absence of that, at least India specifically, I'm afraid we have very little ground to stand on and the woo sellers will grab their spot in the sun.

Also, Yahoomess:
I'm sure you have the credentials and everything and maybe I respect that, but please, do pay attention to your delivery. Its embarrassing to all reading to hear you needlessly insult people when you could have easily tried to make a resonable point by being coherent. If you try to reason, maybe people will listen.

Phew. Sorry about the mammoth.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 19, 2010 1:15 AM

For the nerd's post 289, I already posted 2 links.
One which was a comprehensive review of the lit. on BIHT vs. synthetic and finds that BIHT is superior both in terms of being more effective and also in less complications/side effects/adverse reaction. The other link was that Chinese herbs are better than allo drugs for endometriosis. To correct your posts of 489 and 490, I am not a quack, but your rhetoric is related more to horses and donkeys. oh yah, your post 479 was wrong also. NDs are in the U.S. and we already found (sorry but your friend Ich was rong) that ND's in the US can prescribe legend drugs and controlled medicines. yes, that is doctors of NATUROPATHY. For your message 491, you show unreliable inconsistency LOL. Osteopathic medicine is an alternative to allopathy. Maybe you can dream of bats now, 'cause that's what your reasoning is like.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 19, 2010 1:21 AM

Caine, Cerberus: you go, girls! (Yeah, that phrase is almost as dated as "groovy, man" but I haven't found an update yet.)

The banned troll was very wrong referring to PZ as a dickhead. We all know he is actually a poopyhead. I particularly liked his brief moment of poopyheadedness. I can just picture him reading along nodding "Yeah, ok, experimental protocol makes sense, good point to check that... WAIT WUT??? THESE ARE NOT FISH BUT PEOPLE! NOOOOOOOO!!!"

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jP6CIiAWoInJx9d00M9ILypMx.NRBw--#fc345 | June 19, 2010 1:59 AM

Dear Betelgeuse, Thanks for your post. I was going to post some more defense agains thtese attacks, but your post cleared up alot of things. I do not know anything about homeopathy. Therefore
I don't think that froglet's comment of 498 relates to me or my training. I do not know about the 1 year diploma and assume the MD in alt. med is a research degree. I made a comment that I am glad that I am a naturopathic physician instead of a surgeon when I read cases like those abusive ones of Dix Poppas. I am against non-consensual surgeries and advocate against this in my postition at OII. I do not have a PhD, although having Elof Axel Carlson as an undergrad mentor, I do know something about scientific research.
I will not post after this.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 19, 2010 2:03 AM

Yahooquack (#507)

For your message 491, you show unreliable inconsistency LOL. Osteopathic medicine is an alternative to allopathy.

See Nerd at #481 where he says of DOs that "They receive essentially the same training as an MD in the US. What they believe in India is not under debate." So in the USA, DOs are what you'd consider "allopaths"; they don't get to use special, non-scientific "alternative" medicine. If DOs where you're from fall more on the quack side of the scale, then they lose legitimacy in direct proportion to how much anti-science they embrace. But we're not talking about ethical violations in Indian medicine; we're talking about the ethical violations in mutilating little girls for aesthetic purposes, a subject you seem revoltingly eager to gloss over in order to pound your chest.

Maybe you can dream of bats now, 'cause that's what your reasoning is like.

I'm assuming this makes sense in whatever your native language is; alas, it doesn't survive translation. However, if you ask nice, I'll let you borrow a few of my bats since you're clearly a few short of a belfry. Maybe they would help you make a post germane to the topic of the thread.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 19, 2010 2:33 AM

I will not post after this.

Well, thank fuck. See that you don't and spare us all the aggravation.

Quack.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2010 4:09 AM

Its just 'remedies' based on simple household common sense. Like grapefruit and onions and spinach being good for you. Albeit not backed up by peer review.

ah, but of course the real problem is, just with all placebo-based treatment, is that if you convince your patient they are being helped, when in reality they are not...

you are doing more harm than good.

this is why those who work within the boundaries of science to treat things like cancer are so vehement against quacks like our naturopathic posterboy here.

It's quite simple, really: If you aren't practicing peer-reviewed, scientific medicine, you're doing more harm than good.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2010 4:14 AM

The Medical Council of India makes money and needs disbanding.

*sigh*

I guess it's even worse than I thought, and I did think it was pretty fucking bad.

thanks.

Posted by: aebrain | June 19, 2010 4:50 AM

From the full article:

Of these patients 46 (90%) were genetic females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 3 (6%) were 46 XY who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries and 2 (4%) were 46 XX disorder of sexual development.

Posted by: aebrain | June 19, 2010 5:03 AM

Various techniques have been described to correct clitorimegaly. Until the 1960s, the clitoris was typically amputated, resulting in a female appearing perineum but poor sexual function.7 Alternatives to clitoridectomy were later described, including recession and relocation of the enlarged clitoris.8 The clitoris was preserved by burying and imbricating the corporeal shaft and excess glans clitoris beneath the pubis. While these procedures maintained clitoral innervation and function with good cosmetic result, there were many disadvantages, including pain during stimulation due to the trapping of erectile tissue beneath scar.

Boys with insufficiently large penises are castrated, and a neo-vagina constructed instead. The penis itself may be amputated, and an insensate clitoral cosmesis provided, or an attempt may be made to fashion a clitoris from the penile head.

Again, those who do not accept the sex they are surgically assigned, are deemed to have the mental illness GIDNOS - 302.6 in the DSM-IV-TR.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 19, 2010 7:33 AM

The other link was that Chinese herbs are better than allo drugs for endometriosis.

we're talking about the ethical violations in mutilating little girls for aesthetic purposes, a subject you seem revoltingly eager to gloss over in order to pound your chest.

I am against non-consensual surgeries

sorry but your friend Ich was rong

I will not post after this.

Osteopathic medicine is an alternative to allopathy.

Still quacking like a fraud.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 19, 2010 9:06 AM

She didn't have the fortune to be born into a female body.

Just idle curiosity: do you guys not see the wooish Cartesian dualism implicit in that formulation?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 19, 2010 10:05 AM

Just idle curiosity: do you guys not see the wooish Cartesian dualism implicit in that formulation?

I do, but I don't think that is what that statement is meant to imply. Makes me think of people with a messed up body plan in their brain. For years people thought there was just a mental illness that made these insane people feel horrible and depressed if they couldn't cut off a limb.

Some of them even did cut off their own limbs.

Later research suggested that people with this disorder actually have a problem in their brain's body map.

I'm probably oversimplifying out of ignorance here (quite genuine).

But it was fascinating because these people were suffering horribly just from having a limb that their brain itself did not think should be there.

I can't imagine how upsetting it must be, not to mention constantly being told you are insane for feeling that way.

I think maybe that is a better comparison. I truly do think that people can have in their brains for whatever reason, the actual expectation of being one gender, while for whatever reason their body does not reflect that.

Having any kind of disparity between the basic expectations of the brain about what one's body is and the realities of the body can be frustrating, but add to that the stigma that to feels so is crazy and you have a very toxic mess.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 19, 2010 11:09 AM

Personally I just killfiled the great derailer. And really whoever that is IRL I just don't care. Can't they post on a thread about alt med?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 19, 2010 11:38 AM

Um, what you quoted here was me yelling at the quack.

My apologies A. Noyd. That's what I get for scrolling too fast. Now to go say five Hail Ramen's for penance.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 19, 2010 12:55 PM

We've tried, again, "fixing" it for years. Trying to convince people that it was all in their heads and totally tout-suite fixable because they body should dictate the sex.

Yeah, I think this is my point exactly. If anything it challenges dualism. It's just that it's easy to forget that the mind is not some kind of plastic thing that can be changed with willpower.

A brain is hardware too, and it's made to process information from a very specific body.

If the information is coming in reporting the wrong things the whole system suffers.

It's easier actually to make the body reflect the brain's information than to change this in the brain.

The opposite of dualism really. If it were such that the mind were not matter then we could say "Brain, I'm really a woman look and see!"

Posted by: hauntedchippy | June 19, 2010 2:45 PM

@ Anubis 206
Thank you for reply, particularly
"If it is an issue at an older age then a teen-aged female in consultation with mum might be moved to request surgery, along with informed, independent and unbiased medical advice of course."

Agreed, this is perhaps a more reasonable position to take given the sensitivity of the issue.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | June 19, 2010 2:59 PM

And now I'm using too difficult words for my limited linguistic skills.

No matter, must agree regardless of interpretationeither way.

Posted by: aebrain | June 20, 2010 2:06 AM

@Cerberus #533, Ol'Greg #534

From
Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

There's hundreds of papers on this issue, and if the subject were any less theologically and politically controversial, it would have been considered settled long ago. But as it's to do with Sex, and many people have hangups about that, barbarities such as this one continue to be committed. It's seen as necessary "for the good of society" for all people to be firmly placed in one category, male or female, with no ambiguity. If that means mutilating them to fit, so be it. It can even be seen as ethically justifiable, as it's incontrovertible that anyone who doesn't fit either stereotype will definitely be persecuted, and often subject to violent attack.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 20, 2010 1:59 PM

Janey Mack:

There's another disturbing reason this surgery is being performed: girls with large clitorises are more likely to identify as lesbians when they grow up.

Oh, isn't that just dandy! *spits* John Jacob Jesusheimer Schmidt, it still comes down to "fixin' them gays, they just ain't natural, ya know".

This is beyond despicable. (Not that it wasn't already; it was. This just makes it that much more loathsome.)

Posted by: janefae | June 21, 2010 1:11 PM

You might just be interested in knowing the story has now crossed the atlantic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/21/normality-under-knife-surgery-genitalia

jane
xx

Posted by: zayiflamalida | June 21, 2010 1:47 PM

But of course the real problem is, just with all placebo-based treatment, is that if you convince your patient they are being helped, when in reality they are not...

you are doing more harm than good.

Posted by: zayiflamalida | June 21, 2010 1:55 PM

Thanks admin.. Not that it wasn't already; it was. This just makes it that much more loathsome

zayiflama lida fx15 ve biber hapi zlfvbh

Posted by: Hugh7 | June 22, 2010 4:00 AM

These children all had "clitorimegaly associated with ambiguous genitalia", but the expression "ambiguous genitalia" is binary-normative: they have (or had) their genitalia, that they would have been quite happy with, and such research as has been done indicates that people whose genitalia are just left alone (absent pressing medical need) have the most satisfactory outcomes of all. In May 2005, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission publicly called for an end to medically unnecessary interventions on intersex children.

Adult intersex people report that among the most traumatic aspects is the repeated genital examinations (often before groups of students) and these 50 seem no exception.

About 1/10 of them will grow up to identify themselves as male, and what was done to them as penile reduction surgery, so the comparison with circumcision is quite appropriate. And circumcision, unlike this surgery, is not at all "nerve sparing".

@Teaude:

... circumcision became popular as an hygienic cut during WW II during the offensive against Rommel in the desert. Lack of water caused terrible penile infestations which were solved by circumcision.

Poppas didn't use a sex-toy type vibrator, but a "biothesiometer" which does vibrate, but is taken away as soon as the "patient" reports that s/he can feel anything, so that aspect at least of the sex-abuse charge fails.

(And if you want to be exact, the plural is "clitorides" but "clitorises" is usual. "Clitori" and "clitorii" are just wrong.)

Posted by: aebrain | June 24, 2010 11:20 PM

There are worse cases of medical arrogance.

This one's one of the worst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OG1cG0UuO4

Again, this happens all the time.

Posted by: jquinn9000.myopenid.com | August 11, 2010 4:43 PM

Watching the in-house patient information channel after a recent surgery, I was shocked to see the horrific black-and-blue bruising that occurs after a circumcision, and felt angry for the first time in my life that it had been done to me. What the hell were my parents thinking? The routine infliction of genital mutilation on infants taking place in our supposedly advanced society is appalling. That's really my main take on this thing.

The vibrator issue, however, is suspect. As a law librarian I've seen thousands of reports of legal cases, a fair number of which are prosecutions of medical personnel for performing sexual acts on patients using some kind of medical terminology to excuse it -- like an orderly performing a "digital vaginal exam" on an unconscious woman. The vibrator test supposedly to assess the child's clitoral sensitivity strikes me as a case of potentially actionable child sexual abuse. If I were a prosecutor in that jurisdiction I would definitely explore it.