![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceWords cannot describe how angry this makes me. I'm angry at the doctor for doing this, the medical boards allowing him to do it, and the stupid parents who think that taking a scalpel to their kid's crotch is even remotely acceptable, much less necessary.
What makes me even angrier, though? Some of the comments there:
1. Asshat men who are hijacking this (as they hijack every discussion of FGM) with anti-circumcision ranting. Yes, circumcision is generally unnecessary*, and should be performed only when medically indicated, or as an adult if one so chooses. But removing the foreskin is not the same thing as hacking into a clitoris. STFU and stop complaining that the Poor Menz aren't getting enough attention.
2. A few people arguing that these surgeries are somehow medically necessary. Um. No. Even though the condition (CAH) that causes enlarged clitorises is itself a problem, those clits? Are not a problem. They function perfectly normally. At least until they're hacked at. The argument that they're "deformed" and that this is a deformity that needs cosmetic surgery is utter bullshit. What someone's bits look like when they're older and sexually active may be an issue of concern for them, but that's something for them to decide on when they're old enough to do so. Parents and doctors ought not to be making irreversible decisions on these things for little kids.
Some genital formation issues that result from CAH do need surgical correcting--separating fused labia, making sure the inside bits are on the inside, making sure that urethral function works correctly--but there's nothing about a large clit that is in any way whatsoever medically problematic. I really, really don't give a shit if you think your kid's crotch "looks weird." You shouldn't be looking at it in the first place, so STFU. The only people who should care about such things are the owner of said crotch and any partners she chooses to be with when she's older.**
3. Some people arguing that there's nothing wrong with the followup "testing" this guy is doing. Um. No. If the testing actually is necessary (which it wouldn't be if the guy didn't hack into them in the first place), the proper way to get that data would be self reporting from the patients themselves: Explain what they're supposed to do to test it, let them touch themselves and then get the data. There's absolutely no need for another person to be touching these girls (and especially not on a yearly followup! WTF?)
I probably take this issue very personally, because my own bits were operated on when I was little. I had bedwetting and similar issues when I was a kid, and my doctor told my mom that it was because my urethra was too small, and therefore my bladder wasn't emptying entirely (which, frankly, sounds like bullshit to me.) So, at five years old, they put me under and stuck something inside me to stretch it out. Needless to say, the recovery from this was very painful, and I'm positive that the whole ordeal probably messed with my head quite seriously. And of course, it didn't fix the problem. I continued to have issues with it, and still wet the bed until I was 12.
Of course I realize that in 1976, very few people understood that most bedwetting and similar issues are either emotional or neurological, but still. I can't imagine how someone came up with the idea that you could cure it that way. Add in all the other related trauma I went through as a kid, and it's no wonder that it took me 10 years in therapy before I could even begin to have a normal and healthy relationship with my sexuality (and it's something I still struggle with.) I can't even begin to imagine what these poor girls are going to be faced with when they're old enough to try to have a normal sex life. Ugh.
* Yes, I'm aware of the studies about HIV transmission and circumcision. They're bollocks. 1. Because the samples involved didn't control for religion--most circumcised men in Africa are Muslim, and have less-risky sex lives for that reason. 2. Because they didn't control for hygiene. Uncircumcised men who don't wash properly are going to have skin irritation issues that yes, will allow the virus to get in easier. Circumcision won't correct poor washing habits.
**Also, some idjit went off about "well, would you sleep with a woman whose clit looked like a small dick?" Um... Yeah, I would. As would most people who are actually worth having sex with. People who give a shit about stupid things like that don't deserve to get anywhere near someone else's crotch, big clit or no. Same goes for people with ridiculous demands about penis or breast size.
I'm still seeing the What About the Foreskin!!! complaints here and there, and it's just pissing me off...
OK, here's an analogy:
Imagine you're living in a culture that idolizes blue eyes. Everyone's born with brown eyes, but there's a surgical option to change brown eyes to blue. Keeping "intact" brown eyes marks you as someone unclean, at best, and sinful in some cases, so most parents have this surgery performed on their kids at birth.
This surgery does not come without serious risks, but the risks for boys are much less problematic than the ones for girls. The surgery for boys takes away about 10% of vision. The surgery for girls, depending on how light the parents want her eyes to be, takes away 50% or more, and in some cases results in total blindness.
Now, obviously, doing this surgery at all is quite awful. But there's a huge difference between being slightly near-sighted and being completely blind.
Circumcision is, IMHO, unnecessary in virtually all cases, and shouldn't be done. But it's basically the only invasive, damaging procedure men and boys have to go through purely for the sake of their culture EVER. Women and girls in Western culture don't have to endure much in the way of FGM (thank goodness), but we still undergo the lion's share of other types of damaging cosmetic surgery. Boob jobs, for instance, which deaden breast sensation. It's horrific that women will actually destroy a good part of their sexuality just to make themselves more sexually appealing to men.
Yes, circumcision sucks, but in the grand scale of things, it's like complaining about having to wear a tie with a suit when women are expected to wear painful shoes and get bikini waxes. STFU.
What makes me even angrier, though? Some of the comments there:
1. Asshat men who are hijacking this (as they hijack every discussion of FGM) with anti-circumcision ranting. Yes, circumcision is generally unnecessary*, and should be performed only when medically indicated, or as an adult if one so chooses. But removing the foreskin is not the same thing as hacking into a clitoris. STFU and stop complaining that the Poor Menz aren't getting enough attention.
2. A few people arguing that these surgeries are somehow medically necessary. Um. No. Even though the condition (CAH) that causes enlarged clitorises is itself a problem, those clits? Are not a problem. They function perfectly normally. At least until they're hacked at. The argument that they're "deformed" and that this is a deformity that needs cosmetic surgery is utter bullshit. What someone's bits look like when they're older and sexually active may be an issue of concern for them, but that's something for them to decide on when they're old enough to do so. Parents and doctors ought not to be making irreversible decisions on these things for little kids.
Some genital formation issues that result from CAH do need surgical correcting--separating fused labia, making sure the inside bits are on the inside, making sure that urethral function works correctly--but there's nothing about a large clit that is in any way whatsoever medically problematic. I really, really don't give a shit if you think your kid's crotch "looks weird." You shouldn't be looking at it in the first place, so STFU. The only people who should care about such things are the owner of said crotch and any partners she chooses to be with when she's older.**
3. Some people arguing that there's nothing wrong with the followup "testing" this guy is doing. Um. No. If the testing actually is necessary (which it wouldn't be if the guy didn't hack into them in the first place), the proper way to get that data would be self reporting from the patients themselves: Explain what they're supposed to do to test it, let them touch themselves and then get the data. There's absolutely no need for another person to be touching these girls (and especially not on a yearly followup! WTF?)
I probably take this issue very personally, because my own bits were operated on when I was little. I had bedwetting and similar issues when I was a kid, and my doctor told my mom that it was because my urethra was too small, and therefore my bladder wasn't emptying entirely (which, frankly, sounds like bullshit to me.) So, at five years old, they put me under and stuck something inside me to stretch it out. Needless to say, the recovery from this was very painful, and I'm positive that the whole ordeal probably messed with my head quite seriously. And of course, it didn't fix the problem. I continued to have issues with it, and still wet the bed until I was 12.
Of course I realize that in 1976, very few people understood that most bedwetting and similar issues are either emotional or neurological, but still. I can't imagine how someone came up with the idea that you could cure it that way. Add in all the other related trauma I went through as a kid, and it's no wonder that it took me 10 years in therapy before I could even begin to have a normal and healthy relationship with my sexuality (and it's something I still struggle with.) I can't even begin to imagine what these poor girls are going to be faced with when they're old enough to try to have a normal sex life. Ugh.
* Yes, I'm aware of the studies about HIV transmission and circumcision. They're bollocks. 1. Because the samples involved didn't control for religion--most circumcised men in Africa are Muslim, and have less-risky sex lives for that reason. 2. Because they didn't control for hygiene. Uncircumcised men who don't wash properly are going to have skin irritation issues that yes, will allow the virus to get in easier. Circumcision won't correct poor washing habits.
**Also, some idjit went off about "well, would you sleep with a woman whose clit looked like a small dick?" Um... Yeah, I would. As would most people who are actually worth having sex with. People who give a shit about stupid things like that don't deserve to get anywhere near someone else's crotch, big clit or no. Same goes for people with ridiculous demands about penis or breast size.
I'm still seeing the What About the Foreskin!!! complaints here and there, and it's just pissing me off...
OK, here's an analogy:
Imagine you're living in a culture that idolizes blue eyes. Everyone's born with brown eyes, but there's a surgical option to change brown eyes to blue. Keeping "intact" brown eyes marks you as someone unclean, at best, and sinful in some cases, so most parents have this surgery performed on their kids at birth.
This surgery does not come without serious risks, but the risks for boys are much less problematic than the ones for girls. The surgery for boys takes away about 10% of vision. The surgery for girls, depending on how light the parents want her eyes to be, takes away 50% or more, and in some cases results in total blindness.
Now, obviously, doing this surgery at all is quite awful. But there's a huge difference between being slightly near-sighted and being completely blind.
Circumcision is, IMHO, unnecessary in virtually all cases, and shouldn't be done. But it's basically the only invasive, damaging procedure men and boys have to go through purely for the sake of their culture EVER. Women and girls in Western culture don't have to endure much in the way of FGM (thank goodness), but we still undergo the lion's share of other types of damaging cosmetic surgery. Boob jobs, for instance, which deaden breast sensation. It's horrific that women will actually destroy a good part of their sexuality just to make themselves more sexually appealing to men.
Yes, circumcision sucks, but in the grand scale of things, it's like complaining about having to wear a tie with a suit when women are expected to wear painful shoes and get bikini waxes. STFU.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
I can't understand how any parent can let themselves be talked into something like this. (Or even what happened to you.) Before I had my son, I did some research on circumcision, because my friends who were having boys just casually went along with it, but it just went against everything in me (and my research confirmed my suspicions). I'm this child's *parent*. I'm supposed to protect him. This is his original packaging. Who the hell am I to mess with it?
So, I would disagree with your #1 to a point - circumcision *is* genital mutilation, although not quite to this level, and those 'follow-ups' are unconscionable.
no subject
no subject
on a related subject- my boyfriend WISHES he had been circumcised- there's something a bit out of shape with his foreskin and sometimes it gets turned inside out.
no subject
no subject
My daughters on the other hand??? Who the hell cares, their bits aren't usually as visible! This guy is sick, and I feel really sorry for the kids that have gone through it. Wonder what he said to the parents to convince them it was 'necessary'?
no subject
**Also, some idjit went off about "well, would you sleep with a woman whose clit looked like a small dick?"
Well there certainly is a market for nude pictures and porn starring female bodybuilders whose clits look like small dicks due to the hormones etc they're taking - so I'd say quite a few people's answer to that question would be "Yes"!
no subject