Sometimes I worry that I’m assimilating too much, caving in to the man, as it were. So, I took heart at my outraged reaction to the article in the NYT on sex assignment surgery for new borns. Some fraction of a percent of kids are born intersex. But rather than risk them feeling a little weird, or letting them figure themselves out, or, you know, fucking being honest with them as adults, the standard plan is to surgerize their genitalia to ‘make it look right’ and forget that there was ever anything unusual about this. It used to be things like removing their phalus (by which I mean an ambiguous clitoris/penis). This totally screws up their sex life later. Nowadays, they supposedly have less drastic interventions, though they still involve slicing and dicing. And the tiny amount of scientific evidence that can be gathered on the subject suggests that maybe the kids who don’t get cut grow up happier. But the new improved standard does discourage them from rushing to surgery. Doesn’t say “don’t do it” just sit down and think first.
Okay, now here’s the kicker. Most parents seem to think carving their kids privates into a more socially accepted shape is the best solution to this ‘disastrous’ outcome. I have no words for how much this idea pisses me off.
I’m still furious that people don’t consider circumcision barbaric. :-/
I do, any unnecessary genital surgery on babies is barbaric.
But “surgerize”?! That’s a new one.
I can’t really take credit. It’s not my creation. That having been said, I’m not sure what the original source of that verbation is. 😉
ok, i’ll bite. (no pun intended. ugh.)
i can see having objections to it, to not wanting it done to yourself, to people you know, but i’m having trouble seeing it as “barbaric”.. could you explain?
i’ve always thought you could argue it either way… in some sense..
After the invention of indoor plumbing, there’s no reason I know ‘for’ it. At all. If you can help play devil’s advocate in the “for circumcision” category, I’d love to hear it.
You’re cutting the genitals, and permanently reducing sensation. That’s, ah, generally not a good thing.
well, i’ve had this discussion before and never been able to reach a conclusion either way – let’s try again.
i tried googling to see what facts there were – i found a few pages which all seemed kind of biased in one way or the other…
there seems to be evidence or suggestion that it helps with cleanliness – this makes sense in some obvious ways, though i’m not sure how far-reaching this is. there likewise seems to be some suggestion that circumcisions can reduce std transmission (which surprised me actually)… i think i came across a study in africa which said this as well.
there’s also the weaker arguments for it that it looks better, and that reduced sensation there is not a bad thing.. though actually i’m wondering, how do we know it reduces sensation? how do you measure that? is that guesswork? i’ve never understood that aspect of it.. unless it’s supposed to be due to increased exposure?
regardless, from what i could tell, no one seems really sure one way or the other.
i’ll also ask if getting piercings is barbaric – what about genital piercings? in other words the “you’re cutting the genitals” itself isn’t a barbaric practice.
i’m not saying it should be done. i’m not saying it shouldn’t. but i am saying that i can’t see why, given what i’ve said, it’s “barbaric”..
it’s like saying drinking something with aspartame is “idiotic”. i don’t think you can make such a claim.. you can argue – quite reasonably – that you shouldn’t drink it… but there’s quite a jump from doing something questionable to it becoming barbaric.
even if there weren’t any evidence for it, i’m not sure i’d see it as ‘barbaric’.. maybe you’re using the word differently than the way i’m used to it being used. or maybe i don’t understand the issue…
A surgically altered penis looks better.
Reduced penile sensation is a good thing.
You know, I’m not going to even try to argue against those two.
Removing nerve endings reduces sensation. Removing chunks of your flesh removes said nerve endings. However, I think the “less sensation” argument is based upon those people who have been circumsized later in life.
Regarding piercings, I’ll clarify my original intent. Circumsizing infants is barbaric. If someone who’s older decides they want to nip the tip, all the better? Performing elective surgery on infants for the parents’ gratification is barbaric.
Define barbaric, if that doesn’t seem to make sense to you.
Regarding cleanliness issues, male genitals that are uncircumsized produce more smegma, and it’s important to wash your penis occasionally. As a side note, the folds of the labia on women… yup, those produce smegma too, and would (by pro-circumsicion logic) best be removed for cleanliness.
well, if you’re not prepared to argue the points that are often presented, then i’m not sure we can get anywhere… i’m not arguing those points but in order to present an argument to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you you have to be willing to see it from their side. otherwise you’re just preaching to the choir.
i see your arguments as valid but i don’t see them as conclusive, nor do i see the counterarguments as such. maybe i’m just too agnostic…
good point about the labia… but to be honest i don’t think the skin surrounding the penis is terribly sensitive… is there evidence to the contrary? anything other than anecdotal, which is hardly any better than “the penis looks better”?
Main Entry: bar·bar·ic
Pronunciation: bär-‘ber-ik, -‘ba-rik
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians b : possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization
2 a : marked by a lack of restraint : WILD b : having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality
i had assumed that you meant 2b… or perhaps 2a… seeing as 1a is kind of too specific and 1b is too vague.
was i wrong?
I can’t argue about the beauty of a circumsized vs uncircumsized penis. It’s entirely subjective, and I’d suspect, it’s completely dependent on what one is used to looking at.
As far as barbaric, performing surgery on infants with no anasthesia without any medical reason to do so seems to fit the bill. We have the cultural level above savagery down, but that’s about it.
but you haven’t argued effectively that there is no medical reason to do so .. i’ve presented some reasons and as far as i can see you’ve just ignored them? you’ve just presented a different (valid) argument that the medical reasons may not justify the expense.. but you haven’t really presented that very well either..
your argument seems to be, to me, “well, some people say it can reduce sensation, which is more important than potentially reducing infection”.. or something along those lines.
my job, i’ll admit, is easier is that i don’t really have an argument other than “it’s not that clear”.
Seeing as I am uncut and have not decided to change that, I can’t comment on the sensitivity issue, though I’d wager that at least some sensation is lost due to loss of skin and nerve endings. How that might affect things, I can’t say.
As to the cleanliness issue… My personal opinion is that guys play with themselves enough that they should learn quite quickly how to keep things clean. 🙂 It isn’t that difficult really. Pull some skin back, rinse, or if you want, wash gently with soap. Besides, if a kid hasn’t learned, all it will take is one infection for the lesson to be driven home. (And I’d have to as my mother, but that may be how it went with me.)
And I have heard about the study that mentions circumcision reducing the transmission of STDs, however if one is using a condom, I bet cut vs. uncut doesn’t matter so much.
I’ll leave the rest of the arguing about definitions and preferred look (cut vs. not) to you guys. 😛
All that said, I have no problem with a guy choosing of his own accord to be circumcised or pierced. When he can make the choice, it is his own business, IMHO.
Actually, there’s some research that says that circumcision increases the transmission of STD’s. Given that you, you know, wash it.
It makes the ethics of the thing slightly different for third world countries.
there seems to be evidence for both theories… i’m never sure what to make of it.
You really don’t have an argument for me to go against, which makes my job nigh impossible.
So I’ll try and cover it all.
The Journal of the American Medical Association , found “no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.” The foreskin isn’t anti-hygenic; in much the same way the eyelids are a protective sheath, the foreskin is pro-hygenic.
Circumcision is the only surgery in America routinely performed without anesthesia. On infants. Obviously, without consent.
From another angle, I’ll look at the national associations of physicians:
2003 British Medical Association:
The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. .
2002 Royal Australasian College of Physicians:
After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision. The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit.
2002 Canadian Paediatric Society (reaffirmed 1996 position)
“Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
2000 American Medical Association
“The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.”
1999 American Academy of Pediatrics
“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”
1996 Australian College of Paediatrics
“The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that ‘neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].’ ”
I only speak English, but apparently, every major group of physicians worldwide recommend against childhood circumcision.
My personal opinion would be that if it has benefits that equal it’s cost, which it may:
1. It can be done later in life, as a voluntary procedure.
2. It can be done with anasthetic, whereas anesthetic isn’t recommended on infants.
again, i’ll say that what you present is a compelling argument to not get circumcisions done on infants…
but it’s a big jump from that to saying that something you think shouldn’t be done is barbaric – even one of the quotes you cited says there may be benefits…
i mean, you could call meat-eating barbaric by much the same arguments…
again, remember, i didn’t have a problem with anyone saying that circumcision is a bad idea – there’s plenty of evidence for it. but i don’t see anything still that says it’s barbaric — or rather, by how you seem to be using it, any more barbaric than anything else done by our culture. which brings into my mind the question of whether the word is being used right?
just because someone is doing something you find offensive does not automatically make it barbaric.
I don’t think circumcision on adults is barbaric.
I think the barbarism is performing elective surgery on infants without anesthesia.
Rephrase:
I think the barbarism is performing elective, irreversible surgery on infants without anasthesia.
what about things like innoculations? are those not “elective, irreversible”, though they are not surgery, that’s true.
Those prevent disease in children, and are endorsed by every medical association in the world.
Um, Alex, you just acted as though cosmetic surgery and disease prevention were directly comparable. wtf?
I’m seeing alot of pedantic word play, but I’m not seeing a larger point in your contributions here.
There are cases where the foreskin is too tight, I saw some of them in my medic days. However, a reasonable solution to that is to cut it open, rather than cutting it off.
There’s something inherently selfish about reproduction (expression of ego and all that). It’s too often about what the neighbors will think.
I think you’ve hit on the crux of what I was going to say in a more bumbling fashion. What I would add, however, is that often parents tend to mix together concern over what the neighbors think with some kind of concern over the well-being of the child. The two issues do relate to some extent, but it seems common to skip the distinction altogether.
We’ve all heard the story about David Reimer, his botched circumcision, and the problems of drastic gender assignment, but if there is just an extra flap of skin here or a nub there… I don’t see what is so bad about taking it off. I’d probably rather have it done to my child as a baby than a 12 year old or whatever. Would you be so upset if a small cosmetic sugical procedure were done elsewhere on a newborn’s body?
Assuming one goes with your strategy, at what point in the child’s life would you consider the surgery? When they are old enough to establish their own gender? When they are exposed to other naked people and realize they are different? Would you not let them do it until they are a legal adult? They are probably going to have a strong desire to do something about it– one way or the other– long beforehand.
Anyway, I don’t mean to use interrogation as a means of argument; I’m legitimately curious about what your solution. “Never cut” seems to me to have as many problems as “cut”. If gender confusion is not going to result– or they wait a few years to make sure– then I’m not sure I wouldn’t be one of the parents inclined toward surgery.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that these kids are going to want to do something about it “one way or another” at any point. Though this couldn’t be submitted as “evidence” my experience with people with parents who let their kids keep what they had suggests that they are happy that they were left alone. Every single one of them did, indeed, suffer through intense embarassment during locker room experiences or similar – but who the fuck didn’t? Kids my age were insisting they needed breast enhancement, penile enlargement and some kids wanted the opposite when I was probably 10!
We’re all fucking different. And God or whatever help us if we can’t be open enough with our kids and involved enough in their lives to help them through the insecurities of youth. My daughter isn’t developing with the rest of the girls her age and she’s fucking pissed. I spend about three hours a day discussing with her why people look different from one another. It’s tiring, and certainly she’s suffering some self esteem knockabouts, but what should I do? Get her some surgery?
You could suggest that this is a different case, but I’m not sure what rationale you would use.
e
I don’t think it is a mistake to assume that kids will have a desire to do something about it – our society is set up in such a way that the vast majority of individuals would not have a sense of identity strong enough to overcome the social stigmas that come with an ambiguous sexual identity. I do see why it would be tough to decide one way or the other as a parent what should or shouldn’t be done, because it is a more intense procedure than something such as circumcision, and personally I think that I would have to agree that nothing is probably the best option if there are no health or well being concerns with the situation. You cannot, however, deny the fact that it is far more likely for that individual to develop an ego-dystonic self identity than for them to embrace their differences and enjoy them, and ultimately that is what those parents are choosing for their children to avoid, whether your morals agree with them or not.
As I think I mentioned, I’m only speaking from my experience with intersexed individuals – some of whom are activists in the intersexed arena and some of whom are “stealth” and don’t really identify with that movement. I also have some experience with individuals who don’t identify as intersexed at all – because they chose to have surgery to “correct” their bodies at some point beyond childhood and they consider this to remove them from the realm of intersexuality.
Overwhelmingly my conversations with individuals listed above have revealed an experience of their bodies that was no more or less embattled than the experiences of many who are more or less “normal” in gender presentation. Gender norms in our society at large are SO rigid, that the young male with an exceptionally small penis (though still within the realm of “normalcy”) is ridiculed, the “effeminate” male is ridiculed… anyone who doesn’t toe the line is ridiculed.
After talking with these individuals, reading and otherwise researching plenty, it is my assessment that the pain suffered by intersexed individuals who were not modified as infants is, quite simply, not as acute as the pain suffered by intersexed individuals who were modified.
In the end, whether kids make it through with their Selves relatively intact has absolutely everything to do with their parental environment – parental/family environment is absolutely capable of protecting the vulnerable from a rigid and wicked society hellbent on seeing everyone fit into a particular mold. This is the case for intersexed individuals, for people like me (transsexual) and for people like my daughter (not obviously ambiguous in gender or sex).
Surgical answers to social problems are not just morally reprehensible, they are mostly unnecessary and often ineffective.
Ironically, this exact subject was the topic of lecture in my human sexuality class today. We even watched a movie which explained the concept of intersexuality, but tended to focus on the horror that the parents feel to not know the immediate sex of their children, even going so far to have a doctor explain that he feels the only way to avoid psychological problems on the part of the child was to make sure surgery was complete before the age of 15 months.
It was an interesting thing to see, especially with the handful of intersex individuals who were interviewed to explain the ordeals they encountered.
Having heard/read/discussed more about it, I must say that I agree that any surgical decisions made are almost entirely for the parents’ benefit, whether to make them feel more comfortable or to prevent them from living with a potential socially taboo situation, and while many of the intersex individuals may encounter personal problems or issues to deal with as they grow up being more unique than their peers, that most of them would definately be better off had they not been altered without their knowledge or consent at such a young age.
I’d say on a case by case basis.
After they can show that they understand a) that it will hurt, b) any complications that may arise, c) that it will be permanent and d) if they still maintain a strong interest.
Of course, I’d pretty much apply these same criteria to a kid who wants sex reassignment surgery. When is it okay to perform a phalloplasty?
I’m not a big fan of unneccesary surgery. And I count most cosmetic surgery as such. I grant exceptions for things with general well-being effects (reduced backstrain after breast reduction; fixing a cleft palate so a baby can eat), reconstructive surgery (recovering from burns, rebuilding someone’s distorted face/body after a car accident, etc). I’m a little more hesitant on “major facial defects”, but generally think surgery is okay there, due to the social implications in day to day living.
No link to NYT article?
I never got outraged by the articles I’ve read on this, because it’s usually been presented in the context of something we used to do until we knew better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html
it was on the bottom right under the magazine section. Not easy to find, I know.
It seems it’s something we still do.
and you know, they oft think their kids will be seen as freaks and never finding happiness… and i dunno, i could totally be into someone who’s physical and mental sexual identity was neither male nor female. THey are people, docs! People born perfect the way they are!
Yeah.
WhatEV.