Cornell research on reducing clitoral size - v worrying

[Habbibu]

Came across this by accident the other day, via one of DH's fb friends - it's really worrrying and disconcerting. A team from Cornell university have been surgically reducing the size of girls' clitorises - perfectly healthy, but deemed "too large"; they produced a paper apparently showing retained feeling, and intend to follow-up by testing sensation over the years. I think this is quite horrible and disturbing on several levels - anyone else seen this?

Good god.
[blue]

I understand your fury but we need to find a way of channelling it positively actually to help these children and prevent this happening to more.

We just need more information initially.

I agree with flight. On the face of it it sounds outrageous but I don't think we understand enough about why this is being done.

I am not saying that I agree with cosmetic genital surgery for small girls by any means. But these parents are consenting to this and there must be a reason and I would like to know what that reason is.

Yy. People get caught up in the reasoning once the initial shock has gone. Somehow it all starts to seem ok.

No, no it needn't

think about male circumcision and indeed the female sort

does that seem OK to you or anyone else on this thread? We've heard all the counter arguments and that there is usually parental concent, but I for one am still vehemently against both.

I am vehemently against male and female circumcision.

When the outrage dissipates, that is the end of it.

I am assuming that the surgery has been carried out because the children are intersex and their parents are choosing to raise them as girls. That bit I can understand- it makes life a lot easier to be raised as one or the other (m/f).

It is the methods used in post-op recovery monitoring that are of concern. Those poor children- they will never forget those experiences.

No, backto - I think it's always important to fully understand what you're dealing with, esp. when it angers you. I posted as I was shocked, and wanted to talk about it, but have necer been a believer in kneejerk reactions - a position of knowledge is always more powerful than anger alone.

I haven't read the article yet but if you're concerned I don't think it's unreasonable to write to the chair of the ethics committee at his university to express concern/ask why they approved it.

And you have to separate the surgery from the follow up.

Even if the surgery is medically justified or otherwise not completely unacceptable, from that point on he's conducting research.

Research that involves using vibrators on the genitalia of conscious children.

x post bingmy: exactly. You are absolutely right.

bingmy and back to, I agree.

I know I don't agree with the testing, but I'd like to understand more about the surgery before I decide whether my knee jerk reaction that it's plain wrong is correct.

He doesn't have ethical approval for the vibrator-clitoris 'testing'. Quote:

And what about institutional ethics oversight in this case? Yang, Felsen, and Poppas report IRB approval for retrospective chart review, but apparently have no IRB approval for the post-op ?sensory testing.? We asked for a read on this from Anne Tamar-Mattis, the attorney who runs Advocates for Informed Choice, who has joined with us in formally expressing concerns about another medical procedure aimed at preventing the prenatal formation of ambiguous genitalia (and maybe also preventing the development of tomboyism, aggressiveness, and lesbianism in girls).

Also, I don't think a large clitoris (or small penis) makes someone gender ambiguous.

Yes, I think I should have read more before posting - my apologies. It's still disconcerting, and the testing is so vile - would be interested to know if the blog's assertion that this did not receive ethical approval is true.

So. What can be done. Any ideas. Writing to the ethics committee is good.

Imo the only thing that changes this sort of this is a loud and proud exposing and deploring.

For which, Hab, many thanks again.

bump for more people to see it

Agree Lenin - have also read of cases where as adults people have had further surgery because their parents opted for the wrong sex for them. Miserable.

Thank you Lenin, you got there before me. Intersex is not a catch-all label or a singular medical condition. It's a term with multitudinous meanings and interpretations. For many people identified, by themselves or others, as intersex it is not as simple as having surgery to 'make' them one or the other. It's way more complicated than that, and getting more so all the time as medical science advances.

I am absolutely against surgical intervention for any kind of physical sex ambiguity until the person is old enough to give informed consent for themselves. But even leaving that aside, the so-called sensitivity testing is just wrong on EVERY conceivable level. It's amazing how people can continue to shock with the depths they're willing to plumb

This is a First World country with accountability and procedures. Can we walk the walk as well as talk the talk?

Is it worth moving this thread into the women's rights topic?

I wonder if he has a small penis?

I'm totally shocked and disgusted by the follow up. That is perversion by any other name and Gary Glitter was jailed for that sort of thing!

I am shocked that if he has not received ethical approval for the follow up testing, that it is stll continuing. Even with parental consent this is sexual abuse and he should be prosectuted.

What are the parents thinking allowing this to happen?

I don't think this is a women's rights issue - this is a child protection matter.

I am sceptical. I wonder if it is a very dodgy fabrication that has done the internet rounds.

It just seems so unlikely.

Completely unlikely, unethical, abusive - but descriptive enough to really turn some paedophiles on.

If it is true, then abuse, yes. And needs to be stopped.