posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:55 AM
Originally posted by Maxmars
It is to remove the excess (hence nonfunctional) tissue and deformity while allowing the child to grow up with genitalia that hasn't been stripped of
its sensory capacity.
That is why the sensitivity is tested. And a vibratory device is not necessarily a dildo.
Exactly. And exactly why people insinuating that parents may be using this doctor's practice to get around the genital mutilation laws is so bizarre
-- the entire point of this procedure seems to be to preserve
the normal sensory capacity of the clitoris. If you read the article (there's a
link posted to a pdf of one of this doctor's articles on the first page of the thread), it even gives some history of how the condition used to be
treated and the sexual problems resulting from those treatments.
The follow-up tests are to determine how successful they have been in preserving sensation in the clitoris, not to "sexually stimulate" the
patients. They measure how long it takes for blood to return to the tissue, and whether they can detect
vibratory stimulus -- they're looking
for the threshold at which the patient feels it, not for a sexual reaction to it. That seems like a reasonable way to determine the success of the
operation to me.
The question of whether or not infants/children with ambiguous genitalia should be operated on is an interesting one in itself, and I honestly have
mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I have problems with the idea that they have to be made "normal" but on the other I can only imagine the
social (and later sexual) problems that could be caused by having such a condition. It seems to me that in the absence of definitive evidence for or
against early surgery, it should be the parents' choice.
The OP's article indicates there are those who wish to categorize this as mutilation, including the reporter/editor of the news organization.
Maybe that sells better than the story of children who need to have corrective surgery, and the medical practice that accommodates that need.
I suppose that it is possible some surgeries may be unnecessary, but I hardly think this article explains why. It just hurls nasty inferences and
arouses the ire of those who take it at face value.
I think you've hit in on the nose there -- it sells well and arouses ire. To all those experiencing a knee-jerk reaction to the OP, I would recommend
reading the medical article and maybe looking into the conditions that this doctor treats with this procedure. From the journal article:
Of these patients 46 (90%) were genetic females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 3 (6%) were 46 XY who had undergone sex reassignment
surgeries and 2 (4%) were 46 XX disorder of sexual development.
Source: Jennifer Yang, Diane Felsen, and Dix P.Poppas "Nerve Sparing Ventral Clitoroplasty: Analysis of Clitoral Sensitivity and Viability", link
can be found on page one of this thread.
edit to fix tags
[edit on 6/19/2010 by americandingbat]