American Female Genital Mutilation: Would You Even Know?

I dislike tabloid journalism and am revolted every time I pass through the check-stand at the market.  However, I had believed Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) (removal of the clitoris in most cases) was practiced only in primitive, male dominated societies where literacy was low.  Evidently, not so.

One hundred years ago Eugenics was a popular movement for the improvement of the human race.  Mental defectives, schizophrenics, and others were sterilized because there is a correlation between genetic imperfections and reproduction.  Tay-Sachs, hemophilia, Huntington’s disease, sickle-cell, and cystic fibrosis are common genetic diseases no one would want to consciously inflict on their children.  This also one of the practical reasons that brothers, sisters, and even cousins are constrained from reproducing.  But I digress.

Genital Mutilation is wrong (I’m sure there are some exceptions).  What nature has produced over untold generations should have primacy that no societal norm should put asunder to satisfy the fashion of the day or society.

AlterNet / By Daniela PerdomoJune 17, 2010  comments_image 301 COMMENTS

After Cutting Little Girls’ Clitorises, Ivy League Doctor Tests Handiwork With a Vibrator

 When most of us think of female genital mutilation, we probably think of faraway places. Well, peel off those blinders. In 1997, our very own Department of Health and Human Services estimated that 168,000 girls and women living in the United States had been or were at risk of being subjected to some form of the abhorrent practice known as female genital mutilation (FGM).

ot only is FGM being practiced relatively widely in the United States, it’s happening in the most hallowed halls of American medical science. In fact, the head of the pediatric urology department at Cornell University’s New York Presbyterian Hospital — which is often ranked among the top 10 hospitals in the country — has been operating on young girls who suffer from what he (and likely the girls’ guardians) have decided is “clitorimegaly,” or oversized clitorises.

In order to relieve these girls from what seems like little more than a cosmestic issue, Dr. Dix P. Poppas cuts out parts of the clitoris’ shaft, saving the glans, or tip, for reattachment. Poppas triumphantly calls the procedure — rebranded a clitoroplasty — a “nerve sparing” one unlike the FGMs practiced in other countries.

How does the good doctor know that nerves have been spared? Well, Poppas and his nurse practitioner developed a series of sensory followup tests involving Q-tips, their fingernails and vibrators. But don’t worry, a family member was always present in the room. As the resulting journal article notes, management of such situations requires a “compassionate and multidisciplinary approach.”

Activists Alice Dreger and Ellen K. Feder, a professor of medical humanities and bioethics and a professor of philosophy, respectively, have been railing against the practice of FGM — of any kind — for a decade. They are part of the majority medical view that questions the very basis of clitoroplasties. (The American Academy of Pediatrics disturbingly stated in May that it only had an issue with “all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm” — as if any kind of clitoral mutilation did not necessarily entail such harm. The AAPrecanted the shocking affront to women’s physical and mental health only a few weeks later.)

“We still know of no evidence that a large clitoris increases psychological risk (so is the surgery even necessary?), and we do know of substantial anecdotal evidence that it does not increase risk. Importantly, there also seems to beevidence that clitoroplasties performed in infancy do increase risk – of harm to physical and sexual functioning, as well as psychosocial harm,” Dreger and Federwrote in an article lambasting Poppas’ study.

These procedures seem motivated mostly by an obsession with having “normal” genitalia — and normal kids. The fact that cosmetic genital surgery is on the rise is one sign of this. And given that only one of every 2,000 infants is born with genital ambiguity, parents faced with an “abnormal” clitoris are not likely to have ever seen one before and may react with trepidation. Will my kid be a lesbian? Will my little girl want to become a boy? We know children are all unique, like snowflakes, but when it comes to vaginas, sexual orientation and gender identity, it seems we’d prefer cookie-cutter, please.

So parents go to Dr. Poppas who mirrors their fears and offers a medical procedure that Cornell’s Web site recommends “because female patients are able to undergo a more natural psychological and sexual development.” What parent would withhold such treatment, recommended by a top-notch pediatrician and hospital?

Poppas cuts off parts of the perfectly healthy, albeit-larger-than-we’d-like clitoris, the only organ in either sex whose only known function is sexual pleasure.

Although Poppas boasts of the “nerve sparing” nature of his procedure, a study in the Lancet showed some women who underwent other nerve-sparing surgeries “had the worst possible score for orgasm difficulties.” Not to mention the fact that simply preserving the glans may not be enough, given that many women find more pleasure is derived from the shaft than the tip, which can be overly sensitive.

The horrors of clitoroplasties aside, Poppas’ particular brand of FGM adds an extra layer of psychological damage. When Dreger told Ken Zucker, a child psychologist about how Poppas used a vibrator to test a little girl’s clitoral sensation, he said: “Applying a vibrator to a six-year-old girl’s surgically feminized clitoris is developmentally inappropriate.”

Dreger and Feder write:

[The study’s authors] describe the girls “sensory tested” as being older than five. They are, therefore, old enough to remember being asked to lie back, be touched with the vibrator, and report on whether they can still feel sensation. They may also be able to remember their emotions and the physical sensations they experienced. Their parents’ participation may also figure in these memories. We think therefore that most reasonable people will agree with Zucker that Poppas’s techniques are “developmentally inappropriate.”

Of course it’s inappropriate. And lest that is not obvious on its own, transgendered adults have long been vocal about how genital displays in medical exams were among the most traumatic experiences of their entire lives.

In this case, as sex columnist Dan Savage writes, “These post-op visits with the doctor and his vibrator do the girls no good — what can the doctor do if a girl reports no sensation? reassemble her clit? — and retaining sensation isn’t proof that these girls will grow up to be healthy, sexually functional adults.”

The sad irony is that maintaining these girls as healthy, sexually functional, happy adults is the cause of all these problems in the first place. Parents and the doctors who legitimize their fears need to know that reconstructing a clitoris — or any other ambiguous genitalia — to meet “normal” standards does nothing to change what may be behind the differences to begin with. You can’t “fix” your kid’s genetic and hormonal makeup — you can only cover it up, and such efforts can have tragic psychological and physiological results.

The least we can do is give every kid a chance to figure out who he or she is and what he or she wants when he or she is old enough to do make that call — and to accept them as they are throughout the entire process.

Daniela Perdomo is a staff writer and editor at AlterNet. Follow Daniela on Twitter. Write her at danielaalternet [at] gmail [dot] com.
Advertisements

About carlos

I'm a curious person, of reasonable intellect, "on the beach" (retired) and enjoying my interest in anthropology, language, civil rights, and a few other areas. I've been a hippie/student/aerospace tech writer in the '60s, a witness to the Portuguese revolution in the ‘70s, a defense test engineer and witness to the Guatemalan genocide in the '80s, and a network engineer for an ISP in the '90s. Now I’m a student and commentator until my time is up. I've spent time under the spell of the Mesoamerican pyramids and the sweet sound of the Portuguese language. I've lived in Europe, traveled in Brazil, Central America, Iceland, New Zealand, and other places. My preferred mode of travel is with a backpack and I eat (almost) anything local. Somehow, many of the countries I have been to have had civil unrest (for which I was not responsible). I'm open to correspond with anyone who might share my liberal, humanist interests. I live in San Buenaventura, California.
This entry was posted in Anthropology, Sex and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to American Female Genital Mutilation: Would You Even Know?

  1. Oi, Carlos !

    Pensei que o artigo iria se reportar a costumes tribais. É deprimente saber que tais procedimentos acontecem nos EUA. E quanto aos demais países ocidentais de primeiro mundo? Existem estatisticas ou notícias a respeito do assunto?

    Os números impressionam… e assustam!

    Grande abraço .

    Clara

    • carlos says:

      O assunto nunca sequer ocorreu-me que fiessem isso. Mas, evidentmene, há alguns defeitos que podem causar problemas no futuro. Não obstante estas preocupações, deve haver um periodo de reflexão antes de fazer qq coisa precipitado. Tb ficava asustado!

Comments are closed.