sapphire_distortion wrote:Oh yeah, I'm such a party pooper because I think that unnecessary surgery (which might significantly lessen sensitivity, by the way, let's not forget that this guy was so proud because he was doing this without lessening sensitivity) just because someone doesn't fit into the binary gender system is a bad idea.
Um, ok? I was responding to this:
Would you still poo poo cosmetic surgery then, or are you only against it because it involves genitalia and gender?
She said "poo poo", so I said "party pooper". I don't see where that's uncalled for. It's not like I was like "JEEZ MERITAVIOLA YOU EVIL CANADIAN BITCH!". : /
In case anyone is curious, this
is the post I was talking about, and here's a response from someone who is - gasp - actually intersexed:
I support surgery that has to be done in order to help the child be normally functioning for their physical health, such as surgery to correct problems with the urethra. But to come out with this hogwash about how it's 'psychologically damaging' for children to grow up with genitalia that is not matching the stringent guidelines outlined in a medical textbook is disgusting and incredibly offensive.
Children should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want genital reconstructive surgery, and which gender identity they wish to align themselves with. While doctors may be right in some cases, in a large number they are not, particularly because they decide the child's gender identity largely based on the size of the cliterophallus. Most cases have nothing to do with the chromosomes of the child and everything to do with the heterocentric notion that the child, if allowed to be 'male' will have an unhealthy sexual life because his penis will not be able to pleasure a woman because it is too small.
It is far, far more traumatizing to be given a gender identity you do not want and to have your genitals hacked apart before you are really cognizant of them as an adult. Many, many intersexed could have had much happier lives with genitals closer to those that they really wanted, and happier childhoods without the pressure to conform to an applied gender identity that did not fit them. This also touches on transphobia, because many people cannot deal with the idea that a child should be free to choose what gender they ascribe to. Contrary to what may be a common belief, if a child is given guidance about the nature of their genitals, they'll deal with it pretty well. Children are really more flexible and strong than most people given them credit for.
I admit that this may or may not have anything to do with the study. I am not going to delve deeply into it because it is incredibly triggering to me to discuss genital reconstruction of infants with people I am not close to. But the language you use throughout your post, and the part I have highlighted are extremely hurtful and they do not fit with the sort of attitude that I would like to see from emerging physicians, especially those who express an interest with working with small children who may be forced to confront these sort of conditions.
It's better to champion the autonomy of these children as people than to mutilate them in order to make others, who should not need to concern themselves their others' genitals at all, more comfortable.