Daily Kos

Shame and Secrecy: Genital Mutilation in the US

Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:58:24 AM PDT

Think genital mutilation doesn't happen here?  

It does--in each of the fifty states, and in practically every other western nation in the world on a daily basis.  If there is a pediatric hospital associated with a medical school in your town or city, be assured that what I am about to tell you is done regularly in your community.

In the United States alone, it is estimated that five children a day have their genitals cut without their consent--not including circumcision. The vast majority of these surgeries are purely cosmetic and is the only non-medically necessary surgery routinely done on children before they are one or two years old.

Something to keep in mind as you read this diary and the future installments are that are two main times when sexual differentiation takes place.  Beyond these two big bangs that take place in our lives, the effects of our hormones are subtlety shaping us up to be who we are on a regular basis--even as adults.

This will be the first of a four part series I want to do over the next several weekends if there is interest.

1.    Intersex 101--done
2.    A short history of sex, gender and how intervention started in the 1950s.
3.    What intersex activists are doing
4.    How you can help fix this broken part of our small world

It's a big topic--much too big to cover in just one diary. This one will probably be the longest one, thankfully.   I hope you'll take the time to read it through. It may appear to not be political in nature, but it is very much so as you will learn if you follow along in future installments.

The first time is in the womb at about 12-16 weeks.  At that point, if there is a Y chromosome, the fetus starts to masculinize if everything is going to plan.

If there is no Y chromosome, the fetus continues to feminize and you have a female, assuming she doesn't inherit a funky gene or develop an endocrine problem.

Sometimes, the maternal environment and endocrine hormones decide to do their own thing in the womb and give us babies that are XX but look like boys and ones that are XY but look like girls at birth. And sometimes, shit just happens that can't be traced to any one cause.

The other point of sex differentiation is at puberty when the ovaries or testes kick into high gear and start putting out large amounts of testosterone or estrogens.  Prior to puberty, most people are pretty much alike hormonally---the differentiations you see are mostly social with only minor endocrine influences. Girls are put into dresses and told to act like a girl, boys into jeans and told to act like a boy. Social cues are used to reinforce to both the child and the outside world if the child is male or female.  Most follow along quite naturally but for others, what they feel growing inside can be a vastly different story.

It all comes down to a big bowl of hormones in the womb and with a bit of luck, everything getting stirred into the right place at the right time.  

Congratulations...you have...a baby

At birth, the sex of the newborn is determined on visual evidence.  That is, those words all parents come to expect to hear shouted out, "It's a boy" or, "It's a girl", is based upon what is obvious---a penis is male, a vulva is female.  Karotyping is not standard for the vast majority of births.  Only if a problem later arises or is obvious at birth, will it be done.

A few parents each day hear something different.  They hear words like, "Oh, shit" as my mother did 4+ decades ago.  They may hear nothing as the baby is quickly removed from the delivery room.  They might be told, "I'm sorry, we don't know".  One common thing that happens when an obviously intersex birth takes place is the new parents will usually not be offered the opportunity to immediately hold their newborn, even though there is no medical emergency.

Other parents will hear, "It's a boy", and then be told a few days later, their baby isn't a boy at all.  Or they hear just the opposite, and find out that all those pink clothes they bought will fit their baby boy just fine.

These unexpected situations place an immediate burden on the new parents.  Relatives, friends, colleagues, are all waiting to hear whether the new baby is a boy or girl.  And the doctors and nurses don't have an answer.  Little information is being offered by the hospital because medical protocol doesn't include counseling and social work assistance for parents of intersex children.  Sometimes full information will be kept from the parents for a few days in an effort to not distress them too much.  

This isn't something that parents are warned about while expecting---that one in two thousand live births are intersex.  The first exposure for most (unless there is a familial history someone brought up---which usually doesn't happen due to shame and secrecy) will be when that baby is born.  I'm not being sensational here---this is very much a reality in American hospitals.

Meanwhile, everyone is asking questions and the new parents are forced to confront what is male or female without any preparation.

What is it exactly that makes us male or female?

Our chromosomes?

Our genitals?

Our internal reproductive system?

All of the above?

Or, is it our gender which often has no dependency on any of the above and won't be discovered for a couple of years?

What goes wrong?

Sometimes, it is a chromosomal variation that puts someone into the realm of intersex.  In those situations, no one may know for several years that gender, sex, and chromosomes don't always fall into a neat binary order. In most cases, it ends up leading to great distress to the parents if the person is still a child when it is discovered or to the person him or herself when they discover the secret as adults.  Just like with the intersex births obvious at birth that cause a questioning of sex, so do the adults who discover the truth about themselves as an adult--who am I? Am I male or female? Am I really a product of my chromosomes?

There was a wonderful article in Redbook Magazine a few years back (not online---but email me if you want a copy) about what happens when the parents know but never tell the child.  The woman in the article discovered that she was XY when she went back to college and did a karotype swab during a biology class.  The results weren't quite what she expected.

There are 70+ variations in intersex that can occur and since I'm not a doctor, don't play one on the internet, and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, I can't get into medical and variation specifics about each type of intersex out there but will attempt a quick overview.

The Not So Obvious

Briefly, on the chromosome side, you can have XXY, XXXY (mosaic--every cell in the body is different), XXO, XXXY, XYYY, XXYO.  Many different results occur with chromosome variations and there is no way to illustrate them all short of a medical textbook.  I know there are some here that fall into these categories and it would be best if they explained the hormones they take and why, if they so choose.

You can have female looking and female gendered people with XY genes and vice versa.

Some of the chromosome conditions cause genital differences, and some don't.

The Obvious

The newborn visual identification of male or female uses a very basic measurement.  

A "standard-sized" clitoris is less than .9 cm at birth.

A `standard-sized" penis is longer than 2.5 cm stretched at birth.

Anyone born with a clitoris or penis that falls outside of these medically defined standards is subject to `intervention'.

If that happens, further tests will be done to determine the reproductive capabilities as a guide in how to proceed next.  Another factor involves social issues as you will see.

How many people are we talking about?

A conservative estimate is one out of every 2000 infants is born intersex.  That is, they have chromosomes and/or genital and/or reproductive variations that differ from what is considered medically standard male or female.  Some estimates put the incidence of intersex births as high as one in every couple hundred births and others put it somewhere around one in every five thousand births.

Can it be `fixed'?

If the person has ovaries and a uterus, the doctors will usually go with female and simply do what is called "genital restoration or reconstruction" (I've tried to figure out for years what the hell is being restored/reconstructed but can't get my head around it)

If a person has testicular tissue that won't function as it should, they often go with female and surgically remove the testicular tissue. We normally call this castration but with intersex kids, it's called "genital reconstruction"

In some cases (such as with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) the testicular tissue should probably be removed at some before childhood if the child is identifying in as female due to the risk of unexpected virilization)

A boy  born without a penis or with a very small one (less than 2.5cms stretched at birth) will sometimes be surgically sex-reassigned as female on the assumption that he will never feel like a real man without a penis big enough for heterosexual, penetrative intercourse.   He may even have had functioning testes before surgery was performed.
A well-known surgeon (Gearhart) remarked while giving a plenary speech a number of years back, "It is easier to dig a hole than it is to build a pole".

Medical technology has yet to provide a way to surgically create a penis in an infant that will grow with his body but advances are being made.  

Dr. William Reiner, a researcher with both a doctorate in pediatric urology and psychology at Oklahoma State University has been studying kids who were surgically reassigned female as infants and has written a number of papers.  His research has indicated a good number of these children reclaim their male identity, usually during puberty.  If you google him, you find even more stuff about his work than I could possibly post.

And what should we do with the XX girls?

In a girl with a uterus and ovaries, a `large clitoris' is usually reduced in size with surgery.

Up until the late 80's, full clitorectomies were routine however, the surgeons who do these surgeries (pediatric urologists) claim to have refined their "technique".  It's a Catch-22 however.  They do the clitoral surgeries on infants and there is no way to follow up until she becomes an adult.  By then, any studies are meaningless because `technique' has changed again.

Common practice these days removes the erectile tissue while leaving the tip connected to the nerve bundle (even though there is no precise research out there yet showing just how extensive that nerve bundle is--the research there is available shows how far into the body the clitoris nerves go, but nothing yet on the actual physiology of the external part of the clitoris itself) and then sewing the tip back onto the small bit of nerves left and calling it a `restored clitoris'.

Here's a picture to better illustrate what I am talking about (sensitive ones---close your eyes and scroll down a bit)

To put this into perspective for unaffected men, it would be like removing all of your erectile tissue from your penis and then sewing the tip of your penis back onto the base of it.

This is almost always cosmetic surgery. There are very rare occasions where there are genital obstructions and those can be life-threatening; however, even those cases, fixing the medical problem will include `cosmetic restoration' since the baby is already under anesthesia.

The main reasons for this cosmetic surgery are truly social---the commonly held medical belief is she will be a lesbian without surgery, she will have gender issues, no man will accept her as she is, she'll be teased in school, and she'll never want to partake in sports.

Little thought is given to what the girl may want when she grows up---her clitoris is literally out of her hands by this time (no pun intended) and what is done is done because there is no surgery to undo it.

Many women who had this done report being in-orgasmic, uninterested in sex, have relationship problems, and incontinent. XX women with born with a large clitoris, regardless of surgical status, report as lesbian or bisexual more than their unaffected sisters do. A larger percentage has transitioned to male, regardless of surgical status, compared to their unaffected sisters and the unaffected population.

Other genital mutilations that take place in modern hospitals include surgeries to insure a boy can stand to pee.  After all, a real boy/man doesn't sit to pee, does he?  

Hypospadius is a common condition that affects boys where the hole on the penis comes out somewhere on the penis other than the tip.  It might be mild---near the tip, or it might be more severe and come out near the base. Sometimes there are many holes.  Many males with hypospadius undergo several surgeries in an attempt to fix it with the most common reason being so they can stand to pee.  After awhile, the number of those surgeries and the resulting scar tissue gives the person a penis that hurts like hell when it is erect or has little feeling in it.  

A few years ago I did a debate panel with one of the doctors that is famous for these surgeries and practically fell out of my chair when he confirmed to me upon questioning that the main reason is so they can stand to pee!  Can you imagine your otherwise functioning penis being sacrificed to numerous surgeries (each one leaving scar tissue) so you can stand to pee?!

One common thread in these surgeries is stunning not in the brutality, but in the secrecy.  

Many of those that had surgeries like I describe above are never told about them.

Current medical reasoning pushes these surgeries during infancy on the assumption the person will never remember.  It implies that the person will never be told and will never realize what occurred, if they are lucky.

For some reason, the American Pediatric Assc doesn't seem to get that the child will remember the genital exams, will eventually recognize the scars, and may one day be prompted to request their medical records.  

I found out my own history when I was 35 and I got those medical records.  

I stopped reading them when I hit page two and it said, "The clitoris was amputated to the nub".  It was several months before I picked them up again. Even now, years after reading those words on that yellowed paper, years after talking to my mom about before she died with all the knowledge I was unable to drag out from her, I damn near have a mental breakdown typing them--not because it happened but because there was a unified front to keep that truth from me while I went through all the other shit we all go through growing up and becoming sexual human beings.

Even now 2005, whether or not to disclose a medical diagnosis to the person affected is still being debated; thankfully, the proponents of lying and secrecy are quickly losing to the voices in favor of full disclosure.

Words Can Hurt

I can't end this diary without a note about language:

Many times you will hear people talk about hermaphrodites.  Get that word out of your head right now before you are tempted to use it.

It's misleading and based upon the Greek myth of Hermaphroditus. Humans do not have both female and male sex organs.  It's biologically impossible.

Ovaries and testes come from the same tissue, the clitoris and penis comes from the same tissue and so on.

Humans can be born with a mixture of both male and female tissue...that is, may have some testicular tissue on one side of their abdomen and ovarian tissue on the other, may have an ambiguous mixture of female and male genitals, and may have a mix of male and female chromosomes.  In the situation of someone with XXYY chromosomes, the medical diagnosis is "true hermaphroditism" but it doesn't mean two full sets of genitals on a person able to reproduce themselves.

Just don't use hermaphrodite---we are neither snails nor worms and for many, it's analogous to the N word.  We may use it privately amongst ourselves or to make a point (i.e. Hermaphrodites with Attitude) but it is generally frowned upon and considered a slur.

The commonly accepted language is currently intersex.

Some people in the population hate that word too, though.  I heard DSD---"Disorders of Sexual Differentiation" recently at the American Psychological Conference where I did a presentation. That description kind of sucks too...disordered?  What the fuck? So, yeah...our language is still being worked out.

Ditto for intersexual.  Beyond the creepiness of it, it is stigmatizing and a misleading label.

Most people with intersex identify in the binary---male or female or as an intersex person who identifies as male (or female) and some identify just as intersex.  If you are not sure, just ask.

Time Magazine did a big article in March, 2005 which called those with intersex "intersexuals".  The community was in an uproar over it.  I was pissed because I had spent hours with the reporter talking about language and it became obvious she wasn't paying attention.  To make matters worse, I sourced the entire article for her and she didn't even mention our website!  

Intersexuality is an equally bad word.  It's not a behavior.  

Suggestions include intersexed, intersexed person, or a person with intersex if there is a compelling reason to make note of it.

i.e.: Janet is an intersexed person.  Janet is intersexed and identifies as female. Janet is a woman with an intersex condition (preferred by most in my experience).

Resources to learn more:

NY Times article on intersex

Radio Times interview about intersex Search for intersex to find the interview (60 minutes).

Bodies Like Ours-mostly peer support for intersex but lots of good information too

Wikipedia

Genital development in fetuses

Not online but worthwhile to hunt down:

In the Life: American Gender "Size Matters"(in reruns occasionally on your local PBS station unless they are one that censored it because I say clitoris and penis in it)

Poll

What makes us male or female?
Chromosomes
Genitals
Internal reproductive organs
All of the above
None of the above
It's a gender thing

Votes: 234

Results

::

Other Polls

Tags: sex, LGBT, Bill Reiner, genital mutilation, gender (all tags)

Display:

Permalink | 269 comments

lovely diary. (4.00 / 5)

Remember seeing a documentary on tv in which a person talked about having had surgery after surgery aimed at producing the perfect penis the doctors thought was necessary, and all those painful surgeries not leading to that goal.

Shows also how ridiculous it is that gender orders our society so much, that the first question people are asked about a new baby is "boy or girl?"  Only time I haven't heard that one was when my cousin had a black baby and nobody in the family bothered to find out - race trumping gender yet again.  Otherwise, though, always "boy or girl?" when the reality may not be a perfect mirror of what people think when it comes to those categories.  We need to be a little more flexible here, you know?

by MissLaura on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:13:32 AM PDT

that is a friend of mine (4.00 / 17)

If it is the documentary I think you are writing about---16 to be precise.  The scar tissue is horrible and hurts real bad from what he told me, and what other men with hypospadius have told me.  And all so he could stand to pee like a real man.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:22:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Don't remember what documentary, (none / 0)

something I came on flipping channels.  He was very articulate.  I think about how awful surgery is, when the only little surgeries I've had have been my choice, undertaken having fully considered the pros and cons, and how it would be to spend your childhood always recovering from or getting ready for a surgery.  Just dreadful, torture really.  All to fit people into these narrow, restrictive views of what sex and gender are and how they have to show just exactly so on the surface.

by MissLaura on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:34:23 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

my story (4.00 / 10)

Infancy--three surgeries.

Age 14 to 15...birthday spent in hospital having vagina #1 badly constructed.  No bike riding for me for several months even though it really was the only way to get around my small town.

Age 18-19 (and again over my b-day) to correct the first vaginal surgery and remove scar tissue.  Thankfully, this one at least got the hole right enough to use a tampon and I thank my lucky stars that I am a lesbian and past lovers and now my future wife is okay with all that scar tissue between my legs.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:51:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

tvb, the bravest diary I have read at Kos (4.00 / 2)

Thank you for your true courage in sharing such intimate details of your life with us.

I've read about this practice.  You might contact Jerome Groopman, he is a physician at Harvard Medical School who also writes medical essays for the New Yorker.  I think he'd be very moved by your story.

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.htm

by nyceve on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:01:31 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks tvb (4.00 / 6)

Recommended.

This is a way of being human that I don't know much about . . . I'm going to check the links you provided and hopefully learn more.

As for words.  It is good for a communinty to let "the rest of us" (notice how fast the divisions spuriously start) know what is not hurtful or inappropriate.  

Anyway, excellently written.  (And yes, the photo was rough.  I'm a scardy-cat about surgery-photos.)

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

by LithiumCola on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:26:21 AM PDT

It is (4.00 / 3)

a rough photo..and I hesitated about including it.  I hesitated for a week about it because I also have to before photo.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:41:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Looks like (none / 1)

"Bodies Like Ours" is a great site.  Straightforward and no bull**.  

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

by LithiumCola on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:49:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Thank you (4.00 / 2)

We are a pretty popular site for many because we don't align ourselves with anyone other than those that have survived the gendercide.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:56:15 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I think... (none / 0)

It was both appropriate and helpful. The (pardon my phrasing) gruesomeness is really required to get the brutality of this practice across--something J. Random Offthestreet often has a hard time understanding.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:30:49 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Difficult subject (none / 1)

Thank you for raising the issue.  I had no idea this was so common.

by jlynne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:36:39 AM PDT

I'm glad that people are raising voices (4.00 / 7)

because this sort of thing still seems to be done without reflection or apology.

As an aside, I did not want my son circumcised and caught flak from everyone--even the nurse's aides in the hospital.  All because I am one of the minority who do not care to circumcise.  I can't bein to imagine what kind of ignorance andpressure are at work with intersex children.  It makes me want to cry.

My condolences to tvb . . . wish you and others like you had been left intact.  Keep speaking out and help the ones yet to be born.

-8.38, -7.13   Soapblox/Chicago, for progressive Midwesterners

by rhubarb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:05:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

good for you (4.00 / 5)

We did not circumcise either, but every nurse that checked on us mentioned this in a positive way (e.g. one saying to my son as she checked his heartbeat, "Aren't you a lucky one..." while another thanked us outright).  I'm sorry you caught flak.  Nowadays there are nurses who are "conscientious objectors" and refuse to participate in circumcision.  Also, you would no longer be in the minority in the western US.

Circumcision also constitutes surgery without consent.  I don't understand how it is legal, since supposedly there can be no "proxy informed consent" for non-therapeutic procedures.  The AMA and the AAP do not recommend routine infant circumcision and do not consider it a therapeutic procedure.  But then, this diary proves that informed consent is not much of a concern for mainstream medicine.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain

by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:16:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Good for you! (4.00 / 4)

Every since I found out the purported reason it was done to me, and I figured out that I was in a country where that "reason" was obviated by ready access to soap and water, I've been pissed off. (Though not at my birth mother. At that time, 1954, circumcision was consented to on one of the many hospital admittance forms a mother signed, and the matter wasn't even discussed.)

"We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams 1764

by greeseyparrot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:27:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The *real* reason (4.00 / 5)

that isn't often talked about

was to prevent masturbation.

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:12:59 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The reason that it isn't talked about ... (none / 1)

... is that it didn't work. Ask any 13 year old circumcized male in America and you will probably hear a failure rate of about 1-4 times a day between the advent of puberty and getting a driver's licence!

by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:38:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

True enough (none / 0)

Why do you suppose it was seen as such a good solution back in the day?

What changed from a hundred years ago to today?

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:10:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

It wasn't just circumcision... (none / 0)

It was circumcision plus, basically, what amounted to several weeks of torture designed to make boys so ashamed, afraid of, and hurt by their genitalia that it would be impossible for them to treat it sexually.

Of course that didn't work.

It was suggested that circumcision should be performed at puberty, without anasthetic, and then salt should be rubbed into the wound by parents in order to re-enforce the "lesson".

Circumcison was used as "punishment" for masturbation. Go look up Kellog some time. He didn't just create a bland breakfast cereal. (The cereal, curiously enough, was also created with the goal of elimination masturbation.)

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:54:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

WOW! (none / 1)

Check this out... I can't frickin' believe it

As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.

M. F. Campbell, "The Male Genital Tract and the Female Urethra," in Urology, eds. M. F. Campbell and J. H. Harrison, vol. 2, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1970),1836.

I thought that rational ended around the turn of the previous century.

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:20:56 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

and in 2000: (none / 1)

A policy statement released in July 2000 by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends sex reassignment surgeries should be done on boys born with small penises: "The testes should be removed soon after birth in infants with partial androgen insensitivity or testicular dysgenesis in whom a very small phallus mandates a female sex of rearing."

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:16:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Holy Shit (none / 0)

I had no idea.

That is horrible.

How "small" is "small" according to these quacks?

by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:39:20 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

generally (none / 0)

Less than 2.5 cms stretched at birth.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 05:23:14 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

the "you'll go blind" rationale (none / 0)

In 1928 the AMA recommended routine circumcision to prevent masturbation, because they believed masturbation led to epilepsy, dementia, and blindness.

I just wonder whether the medical community also came up with the hairy palms thing....

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain

by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:41:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Color me naive. Sounds like... (none / 0)

I was completely misinformed or mislead due to embarrassment when I inquired as a kid. Virtually everyone I asked about the reason for the procedure, told me it was a matter of hygiene and preventing infection. Doh!

"We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams 1764

by greeseyparrot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:13:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Oh, that's the EXCUSE... (none / 0)

But if you--you know--take a shower or otherwise clean yourself occassionally there's really no difference at all.

Don't forget that routine circumcision is actually pretty new. Although it has been practiced probably as long as there was society the US is actually a bit unusual in terms of overall trends. Any sort of argument that circumcision is natural and lack of it is somehow unnatural or dangerous must be viewed in light of the fact that--if i remember correctly--there are more men alive today who are uncircumcised than circumcised.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:38:21 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

circumcision is not as bad as it's cut out to be by some. I saw the editorial on the NYT yesterday that circucised men are 60% (!) less likely to get infected with HIV and to spread it. The editorial was saying that if a vaccine was found that could protect  70% of people infection, that we would be up in arms if it wasn't being used. Well it seems like circumcision is a great tool to use in Africa to stop the spread of HIV. I was circumcised and I have no recollection of the event, I do not feel like I was "mutillated," I don't know if I would circumcize a child of my own, but I certainly do not consider it a barbaric procedure.

I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH [-5.50, -4.69]

by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:08:28 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Stop and think though (4.00 / 4)

If we could reduce the rate of breast cancer by 50% in this country by doing routine radical mastectomy on newborn girls, would it be justified?

Don't you think the owner of the penis ought to have a say as to whether part of it is cut away?

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:11:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

how can you (none / 0)

compare removing a foresking versus removing a breast? It's not a fair comparisson. Listen I agree in that there is an issue of consent, but we do a LOT of things to children without their consent. And I'm not saying I would get circumcized again if I had had a choice, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. And I really have never met another guy who remembers being circumcized or has had an emotional problem because of it. And if it can reduce the rate of HIV infection by over 60%, yes I am for it. A foreskin is not the equivalent of a breast.

I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH [-5.50, -4.69]

by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:17:15 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

OK (none / 1)

I disagree with you but I appreciate your well thought out comments.

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:24:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that's the argument. (4.00 / 2)

I don't think the main objection to circumcision is that men remember it or feel emotionally traumatized before it. The big objections I've heard are 1) it's non-necessary surgery without consent, and 2) it dramatically reduces sexual pleasure (by removing so many nerve endings).

by Summer F on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:48:47 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I know (none / 0)

Those are good points, and like I said, If I could turn back time, I probably would have told my parents not to let the docs circumcise me (because I'm selfish and the pleasure thing makes me jealous) but other than that, I don't have a problem with it. I do not consider it a barabaric procedure, I don't consider it "wrong" or "cruel." I think a parent has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having the procedure done. In the case of the HIV infection rate, I think it's undeniable--studies have been done, and I think this should be considered in Africa as a very serious way to deal with the spread of HIV. Of course, we don't have the same rate of infection, we have condoms and use them, we have education, so not being circumcised is not a problem  if you are careful, but in Africa, they don't have a choice, so I think circumcision should be an option there--it could be cruel, wrong and barbaric to not circumcise men in Africa.

I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH [-5.50, -4.69]

by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:06:36 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Hey, there are studies that show (none / 0)

that uncirc'd men are less likely to recieve oral sex.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:56:28 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

studies show that 87% of studies are made up (none / 0)

Seriously, post a reference. Back your claims up.  

(And what business do parents have worrying about the details of their kids sex lives?)  

by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:09:26 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

RE: Oral Sex (none / 0)

Are you just making shit up as you go along?

by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:32:43 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

It's an elective surgery... (none / 0)

Asked if I would rather not have had it done without  my consent I respond the same way to the question "how would you feel if you were aborted?"

So I view it as a moral issue to be decided by parents. Male circumcision, based on entirely anecdotal evidence, is like a major body mod (piercings and such) functionally. The "sex correction" surgeries and female circumcision seem more risky and also involve loss of function. No reason why there can't be some sort of advocate assigned to discuss the issue with the parents and doctor so that an informed decision can be made.

Because as I understand it, the surgeries are usually intended for the child's benefit... the idea that if you "correct" something at birth the kid won't have to deal with it. Ugh, I dunno.

by f8free on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:05:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

You say sex is even better if you are not trimmed? (none / 0)

That's hard to believe :)

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

by bewert on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:59:15 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

There are some studies that have shown that babies who have been circumsized are more pain senstitive than those who haven't.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:09:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Studies correlating circumcision (4.00 / 3)

with disease always end up being disproven. That no one ever seems to find it at least fishy that this procedure has religous roots AND involves a sexual organ always boggles my mind. It aint a coincidence people!

Anyway, for a fantastic article on all the reasons why we shouldn't be circumsizing boys, here is an extremely well-sourced and researched article from Mothering magazine

Here's an excerpt:

Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be considered irrational. Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and castration. The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the "reasons," later.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:08:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Do you vaccinate your kids? (none / 0)

Or do you think it should wait until they are adults?

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:55:29 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

It depends on the vaccination (none / 1)

I certainly don't just blindly do as told when it comes to vaccinating.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:10:43 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

But *you* are still making the decisions. (none / 0)

As parents, we have the right and the obligation to make these kinds of decisions for our children.

Your decisions may be different than mine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a major problem with the attitude that everyone has to make the same choices.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:34:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Leaving my son's (4.00 / 4)

penis intact doesn't threaten his young life. Quite the opposite. In fact, given that you can't give proper pain medication and the risk involved in infection or maiming the penis, it strikes me as beyond foolish to do when the child is a newborn.

If he wants to be circumcized, he can make that decision as an adult. There is certainly no urgency in getting it done within days of birth. That is his decision not mine.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:53:31 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I agree! (none / 1)

Your decisions may be different than mine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a major problem with the attitude that everyone has to make the same choices.

Amen!  I get so tired of people criticizing me for trimming back the labia majoris of my newborn daughter.  I have the right to make this sort of decision for my child.  I am glad you recognize it.  

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:16:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

How strange is that! (none / 0)

Sorry, but I can't think of a single reason why such an operation would be needed. That you found a surgeon to go along with you truely boggles my mind. On a newborn no less.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:43:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I was being sarcastic (4.00 / 2)

There is a federal law that would put me in jail for 5 years if I did something like that.  And their ought to be one which protects boys too.

My point to the origional poster was that of course people will be telling her to not mutilate her baby's genitals.  Any ethical person would.

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:50:01 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Oh sorry! (none / 1)

I thought after I posted that maybe you were trying to make a point. Seriously though, as sad as it might be, the idea of doing something like that to a newborn girl isn't so farfetched.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:54:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

My bad (none / 0)

I should have been more clear that it was sarcastic.

I can understand why you'd believe it though.  People do strange things.

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:04:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

I was hoping (still am for that matter) that it was a snark.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:56:09 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

What do vaccinations have to do with genital integrity?

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:18:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

The point the OP was making was about consent. We all make lots of decisions for our children based on our own best judgement that they cannot consent to.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:28:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

ok (none / 1)

So think about it like rhinoplasty...do you think you would be allowed to choose a rhinoplasty for your infant because you think he or she has an extraordinary large nose?

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:57:54 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes, I think it should be up to the parents. (none / 0)

The parents and the doctors would be in more of a position to make such a decision than you or I in this hypothetical debate.

BTW, I like your tag line. Seems appropriate at the moment.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:26:29 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Hey, whatever (2.50 / 2)

you had unncessary cosmetic surgery performed on your infant boy's genitals.

No problem.

You changed his sexual functioning for life, possibly changed his brain (via two mechanisms: destructive release of stress hormones during circumsion, the most painful medical procedure that exists, and by possibly destroying neurons that respond to plasurable sensations from the nerve-endings in the foreskin).

You did it for, well, um, not very good reasons, but whatever. I guess if you think the appearance of a boy's genitalia need alteration, that's certainly your choice as a rather ignorant parent.

I hope that in 20 years or so, when he's sexually active, women won't be shocked that his parents had him cut - given that circ rates are falling in the US.

But anyway, nice job.

The Right is killing America

by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:50:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

What a jerk you are. (none / 0)

I didn't give bad ratings to the other people who disagree with me, even what what they said borders on the insulting. But you are getting personal and this is unacceptable.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:03:20 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

The "ignorant" part was a bit much.

The facts though, were accurate.

If you have another boy in the future I hope you'll reconsider; and won't fall victim to the "we have to cut off part of his penis so he looks like his brother" argument.

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:06:35 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Obviously, you and I disagree on this subject. (none / 0)

While I feel comfortable with the decision that we made in conjuction with our son's pediatrician, I recognize that it isn't everyone's choice. That's fine by me.

I do not believe that the PP's facts are accurate. Moreover, I think that all these over-the-top arguments and comparisons with FGM ultimately serve to turn people off. Comes off like PETA, frankly.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:24:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

How would you feel (3.00 / 6)

if your clitoral hood had been removed at birth? Say, because your dad thought they were ugly.

Same exact physiology between the forskin and the cliteral hood, as well as the clit itself.

Again, I'm so glad YOU feel comfortable about cutting your baby's body without his consent, for utterly specious reasons.

You're a great parent.

The Right is killing America

by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:38:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

And you're an asshole. n/t (none / 1)

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:03:46 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

yes, he is acting like an asshole (4.00 / 2)

But he asks a very interesting question.

Would you be upset if your clitoral hood had been cut away when you were a baby?

Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:09:09 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Oh, and regarding my "ignorant" comment: (4.00 / 2)

do you know what the frenulum is? Do you know what Meisner's corpuscles are?

Do you know what "gliding action" refers to?

If not, you are officially ignorant about the foreskin.

All of the above are key elements in sexual pleasure you had cut from your baby boy for NO reason.

He will NEVER know the full range of sexual sensation because of your ignorant decision.

That's your choice, as you said. But I won't stand by here and let you spout your pathetic "arguments" in favor of cutting the healthy genitals of new born boys.

The Right is killing America

by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:23:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Why won't you (none / 0)

reply to any of the questions that have been posed to you?

Oh.. BTW.. Check this out

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/sheldon.jpg

Personally, I think that anyone who cuts away part of a boys penis without his permission should have their genitals sliced and diced too.

by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:14:31 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I can't fucking believe (none / 1)

That there are monsters in here who actually admit to mutilating their baby's genitals... and DEFEND THEIR ACTIONS

Circumcision removes a piece of skin almost equivalent to a 3 x 5 index card.

I wonder if "Auntie" would mind if someone removed 3 x 5 inches of skin from her genitals.

It is telling that she refuses to answer such questions.

I look foward to the time when these people will be thrown into jail.

The sad thing is, I bet "Auntie" is pro-choice.  Too fucking bad she never allowed her son to have a choice.

"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."

George Bernard Shaw

by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:31:38 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 1)

I'm not angry at my parents. A) I'm Jewish and B) I was born in 1969. Ain't no way I was getting away intact.

But I hold any parent today - with all the information available - totally responsible for mutilating their child.

And the medical establishment is beyond contempt in this matter.

I look forward to the day I have a son and leave him the way he was born. I also hope some doctor corners me and tries to persuade me to have him cut.

The Right is killing America

by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:38:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

likewise (none / 0)

Well, the kid is already here and uncut but I look forward to the day we don't even need to debate this stuff anymore and to the day when all children can grow up in the body they were born in without anyone cutting them to make the parents feel better.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:42:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Jewish *and* in 1969? (none / 1)

I am glad you have no anger.  As you say, there was no way you were going to avoid it.

I give parents the benefit of the doubt all the way up to the early 1990s.  After that time, any idiot capable of 15 minutes of research would see that circumcision is a horrible human rights violation that has no medical purpose.

by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:47:20 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Your previous rating of sbardell (none / 0)

Will you go and explain why you went around this diary and rated the diarist sbardell down, as say, in this comment, and others?

Gore 2008: Petition|Blog || Democracy Bonds

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:06:21 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

consent (none / 1)

The consent is on very fragile ethical grounds.  In fact, if you read some of the legal papers surrounding it and the issue of genital cutting, you would find that if challenged by a young person, the parents and the physicians could both be held liable.  

Here's a decent primer on the issue.

Later this year (next month I think) the Women's Law Journal, published by the Cardozo School of Law will be releasing a special intersex issue where this is addressed in more depth.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:16:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

When I bring up intersex, I try my best to not point fingers at the parents because I know often they have very little to work with and don't get the support and information they need to make an informed choice.

I wasn't always that way and used to really harp on the parents but as I've learned more from parents and the lack of choice they were given like not being told the vast majority of IS surgeries are cosmetic and doesn't need to be done, it doesn't make sense. I mostly feel sorry for them now because they didn't take the time and will only need to answer to their child why it was done.

I've also come to the conclusion from talking to parents on both sides of the issue that parents who choose IS surgery for their child probably don't like sex that much.  I know it sounds simple minded but I base it upon what they tell me---like hearing an orgasm isn't all it's cracked up to be or hearing how they and their partner hardly ever have sex so they can't understand what the fuss is all about.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:39:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Different issue entirely. (none / 0)

Vaccination has highly established (inarguable, really) benefits and is otherwise almost entirely harmless.

Circumcision is (essentially) an elective, major cosmetic surgery with almost no (or straight-up no) demonstrable benefits and several major drawbacks, plus the chance of death or serious mutiliation thrown in for good measure.

The two are simply non-comparable.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:59:14 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

yeah right. (4.00 / 2)

Sure, if you take a group of circumcised men who are all Muslim, and a group of uncircumcised men who are mostly animist or no religion and are far more likely to have extramarital sex, multiple partners, etc, then yeah, you can calculate a statistic to say that circumcision prevents HIV.  You've mixed apples and oranges, and it's sheer bunk, but you can generate the number and make the claim.

The history of circumcision research is filled with stupid studies like this.  Remember "it prevents penile cancer?"  That study involved older men who were mostly uncircumcised and younger men who were mostly circumcised, and guess what, they did not control for age.  Penile cancer occurs mostly after the age of 70, so if you ignore age in that data set, it looks like intact men get more cancer.  Again, bunk statistics (and I say this as a biostats person).

In Egypt, where 97% of women are circumcised, over 80% are happy with being circumcised.  The doctors and the women there claim that female circumcision prevents cervical cancer and STDs, that it doesn't affect sexual functioning, and that it's necessary because "What man could be attracted to an uncircumcised woman?"  Basically we have the same situation here in the US, only with men.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain

by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:32:16 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

Here is the editorial, unless it's lying, I think it makes a pretty convincing case:

The South Africa study is the first to offer a high scientific standard of evidence that circumcision is responsible. The study, by French and South African researchers, recruited young men who were H.I.V.-negative and uncircumcised, as are most men in South Africa. Half were randomly assigned to be circumcised. After adjustment for other factors, circumcision reduced the risk of H.I.V. infection by two-thirds during the 21 months of the study. The difference was so great that the trial was stopped and the other men were immediately offered circumcision.
[...snip...]
Circumcision is no easy sell, but it is at least widely performed and accepted in Africa. If an AIDS vaccine were suddenly discovered that could prevent 7 out of 10 new infections, the world would be rejoicing. AIDS policy makers should be discussing how to promote circumcision so they can be ready to act immediately if the Kenya and Uganda studies confirm the good news in South Africa.

I think that is pretty convincing, I don't have a problem with not circumcizing, I really don't. I said before, I probably would have prefered it if I was left uncut, but I just don't think it's some barbaric practice, and apparently it has value in very high risk populations for HIV. And I do not condone female circumcision at all, THAT is a cruel practice, and it has no value whatsoever, and they don't do it when girls are newborns, they do it as a rite of passage when they are pre-teens, that is totally different.

I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH [-5.50, -4.69]

by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:19:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

One study Michael (none / 1)

At this site there is a meta-analysis of 29 studies that included data. Check it out:

Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:34:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

we'll (none / 0)

have to see what the Kenyan and Ugandan studies have to say. I'm not myopic here, if in the long run it proves unfounded then I'll start believing otherwise, but until then, I think the anti-circumcision crowd should also remain open minded. I still don't think it's cruel, but if it has no value whatsoever then there would be no point in doing it except for aesthetic value--which I'm fine with, because I don't think it's cruel and I don't remember this extraordinary pain inflicted on me when I was 2 days old.

I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH [-5.50, -4.69]

by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:40:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Have you ever been to a circumcision? (4.00 / 2)

Have you head the howling? Seen the look of shock and bewilderment on tiny babies who have just been circumsized? No less at the hands of people in whom they have placed ALL their trust? It aint pretty. I've been to one circumcision ceremony. I aint going to another.

If this procedure was done to adult males held in prison camps, you'd better believe it'd be called cruel.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:45:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

And I can tell you right now (4.00 / 3)

that removing a baby girl's breast tissue at birth would save millions of lives. Ponder why that's NEVER going to happen.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:47:37 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

They won't be openminded. Not in their nature. (none / 1)

The most zealous among them remind me of religious fundamentalists. I can't stand the same "I know better than you about everything" attitudes of many leftie "natural" parents any more than the right-wing nut jobs who think we should all live the way they want. People have the right to make different choices, and this drives some people nuts.

Some of the parenting boards are downright crazy over this one. This conversation is pretty tame in comparison.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:35:26 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

so you support a to cut off a daughter's labia? (none / 1)

circ today is largely a social phenomemon.  Studies have shown that it is motivated by parents' desire for a kid to be like his dad, and by female sexual preference.

So would it be OK to cut a girl for the same reasons?

Currently, [i][b]any[/b] non-necessary cutting[/i] of a female minor's genitalia is punishable at a federal level with 5 years of imprisonment and a $250K fine.

Do you think that the majority who support this law are like "religious fundamentalists" whom you "can't stand"?

(Oh, and I understand the difference between severe FGM and male circ...but that's not what the law forbids - the law forbids any female genital cutting).

by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:58:18 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

enforcement (none / 1)

Intersex surgeries were specifically exempted out of the FGM law you cite, Tritium. The history of why it is will surprise many when I address it in a coming diary--it really needs it's own diary as it's complicated with some pretty outrageous issues around feminism (from when it was enacted---hopefully changing now)and medical practice as put forth by the AMA and Pediatrics Associations.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:05:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

intersex surgeries (none / 0)

The funny thing is that intersex surgeries don't seem to be exempted by the text of the law.

Look here.

female genital cutting is allowed if it is

necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner

But perhaps you know much more about the interpretation of the law.  'Necessary' is a malleable criterion.

Thanks for posting this diary, BTW. This is a very ugly subject (your description of reading your medical records made me sick to my stomach).   Not to compare the severity of the two practices, but when you described how you felt when you read your records, I recognized the feeling that I felt when I learned about circ - sort of a sick feeling that parts of my body had been secretly cut off.

by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:20:41 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

it's claimed (none / 0)

That the surgeries are necessary for social and mental health.  The irony is few psychologists are enlisted in making that determination and there isn't one piece of evidence indicating a benefit to surgery.

I'm not an attorney and am only going by what I have read regarding the FGM law and the opinions of attorneys I've spoken to about it.

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:21:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

You're proving my point with hyperbole n/t (none / 0)

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:28:02 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

no, not hyperbole (none / 1)

The labia are not necessary to female sexual pleasure or health.

There would be no crippling effect to trimming a female's labia - in fact, this is now a rather fashionable plastic surgery, even appearing on TV.  Google for 'labiaplasty' if you don't believe me.

So I reiterate my question - would it be OK for parents to make the decision to trim their girl's labia?  Currently, it will get you five years in jail.

What is really telling is the fact that you avoid this question, after loudly declaiming on the subject of parents' rights.  Come on - if you claim that male circ and rhinoplasty are reasonable, why not labiaplasty?  Why aren't you standing up for parental freedoms?

by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:54 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Five years in jail (none / 0)

Are you sure about that? There's a poster upthread from here who said s/he had that surgery performed on her newborn.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:48:20 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

that above comment (none / 1)

was snark, i'm 99% sure.

-7.63, -7.03

by decafdyke on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:56:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

re five years (none / 0)

Look here.  There is a jail term of up to 5 years for who[m]ever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years if not medically necessary.

Actually, I think that this law will not survive scrutiny because it exceeds federal authority (10th amendment and all that).  But I'm not a lawyer.

by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:57:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I am genuinely curious (none / 0)

All of us who are opposed to circumcision have listed numerous reasons why we view it as a unnecessary, painful and risky procedure. In light of these arguments, I'm interested in knowing your reasons for defending it.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:50:38 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I can imagine two reasons.. (none / 0)

The first is that it would hurt to admit how painful it was for the child, and that there exist valid comparisons to mild/moderate (not severe) FGM.

The second is the feeling in the USA that normal males are freaks.  It would be like males all of a sudden having to deal with a third female breast. This is one of the dominant motivations for FGM - it is the normal thing to do.  

by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:01:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I listed my reasons above. (none / 0)

In consultation with our pediatrician, we considered the pros and cons of circumcision and decided to have our son circ'd. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that it should be up to the parents. They acknowleges that there are benefits, such as decreased risk of cancer (which my sister-in-law, a nurse, sees routinely in uncir'd men,) UTIs and so forth. The research is not as one sided as you are presenting.

Frankly, I'm not "defending" anything other than my right as a parent to make the decisions that I feel are in the best interest of my son. And I'm done with this conversation.

No hard feelings, I hope we can discuss politics rationally if we encounter each other on different threads. But I'm not jumping into this fray again.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:19:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

not routine (none / 1)

Australian docs do not routinely recommend it.(1971)

Canadian docs reject it as routine also(1996)

Ditto for the docs in Finland(2003)

UK...in deep discussion about it.

United States...doesn't routinely recommend but allows it for the benefit of the parents and only at their request.

Information at Cirp

Bill Frist is a real kitten killer.

by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:32:15 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

That's a distortion of AAP policy (none / 0)

In 1999, the AAP, a relatively conservative organization, concluded that there are potential benefits to circumcision. And in as gentle a way as possible, they did their best to steer parents away from routine circumcision:

The AAP's policy on circumcision states that the benefits are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure.

In 2000, they ran an article in their journal that stated that risks outweight potential benefits:

A Trade-off Analysis of Routine Newborn Circumcision looks at the risks and benefits associated with circumcision, and concludes that while circumcision remains a relatively safe procedure, for some parents, the risks reported may outweigh the potential benefits. Based on their study of 354,297 newborn male infants, researchers determined that a complication could be expected in 1 out of every 476 circumcisions.

Though granted, they were mushy enough to backpedal somewhat with this editor's note:

EDITOR'S NOTE: This study was published in the supplement to the January issue of Pediatrics, the peer-reviewed, scientific journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), but does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the Academy.

If you have research that refutes the numerous links I've provided, I'd be happy to look at it.

And while parents can now legally make this decision for their children, my hope is that someday this horribly painful procedure will be made as illegal as any other unneeded newborn genital surgery. Already many insurance companies will no longer pay for circumcisions(understandable given the high risk of complication).

That being said, I don't take this argument personally. Clearly we are at the point where we are going to have to agree to disagree.

by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:05:00 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

frequently sees cancer? (none / 1)

I find it hard to believe your sister frequently sees cancer in uncircumcised men when the lifetime risk is 1 in 100,000.  Your sister must see one hell of a lot of patients.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain

by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:25:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

No Auntie Mame (4.00 / 3)

just prefers making shit up to support her decision regarding her son's penis.  Whatever helps her sleep at night.

by sanchez96 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:39:08 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

And the name sucks! (none / 0)

As in:

"I knew Auntie Mame,
I've camped it up with Auntie Mame,
She was a friend of mine.

AND YOU'RE NO AUNTIE MAME!"

Look, I