Because this needs to be said...
Jun. 18th, 2010 03:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mijanI'm sure quite a few of you have already seen the rants on your f-lists. No, not the SPN fanfic stuff. I'm talking about the total uproar some people are making over the ALLEGED "female genital mutilation" taking place at Cornell University.
Personally, I find it mind-boggling how many people are ONLY reading the ranty, non-scientific, highly-biased, slant-angled BLOG POSTS about this, and not reading the goddamned MEDICAL RESEARCH PAPER to see what was actually done! I've seen rant after rant linking to blog-post after blog-post like a line of dominos, but nobody is referencing the actual research paper. Nobody is linking it! Everyone is just screaming their heads off without even going back to the actual research paper.
Fandom, I'm disappointed in you. For all that so many of you are well-read individuals who seem willing to dig up source material, you're awfully quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream bloody murder about this. I'd guess that some of the people ranting don't have enough of a biomedical background to understand the research paper anyway, but for those of you who are able to untangle the med-speak, you owe it to yourself to read the actual source material.
READ IT: The actual published research paper. Until you read it, with comprehension, shut up. And stop "boosting the signal" of something you don't even understand. That makes you no better than Tea Partiers parroting Glenn Beck.
I have seen people call this research the following things:
Female genital mutilation, rape, sex abuse, child abuse, homophobia, trauma, sexual assault, and even torture.
To those of you who have BLINDLY SWALLOWED THIS LOAD OF BULLSHIT, how about doing some research before you jump to conclusions? Otherwise, you're blindly following propaganda, which is a bad thing, whether it's conservative or liberal propaganda. So let's dig into the issue a little bit, shall we?
Do you people know what this research is actually about? Do you UNDERSTAND that this procedure is NOT being done on "healthy little girls" whose only "problem" is that they have big clitorises? Do you understand what Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia is? (Probably not, so go here and read up before you say anything else.) Can you please wrap your heads around the idea that this is NOT about "slightly larger-than-normal" clits. These are girls whose clitorises are big enough AND MISSHAPEN so that they look like penises, and the REST of their genitals are also malformed. Labia may be fused together, blocking the opening to the vagina. Or they could be engorged, resembling testicle sacs. The entire genital structure is morphed, somewhere between male and female. Milder cases might not have any long-term problems, but for others, you're talking about a possible lifetime of sexual anguish and dysfunction.
In the paper, it mentions the lengths of these penis-like clitorises. The lengths don't seem very long, until you realize that these are the non-erect lengths of the PROTRUDING portion of the phallus on very small children, and some are almost equivalent to the penis lengths of boys that size.
The kids who are born with this condition start off in severely poor health due to endocrine system problems, and THOSE issues are treated immediately after birth. (Those problems can be life-threatening.) After the initial medical treatment for the life-threatening issues, parents decide how to proceed with the other issues based on the severity of malformation. Again, these are not "big clits." Go ahead and look up some pictures of people with this medical condition. Go on, do it. THAT'S what we're talking about here.
People should note that two of the researchers listed as authors of this research paper are women. Let's talk hypothetical for a moment. Maybe one of them was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Maybe she grew up with severe self-identity issues because she was a "girl with a penis" until finally having plastic surgery as a teenager, and then because of archaic surgical techniques, she was left with a clitoris that had almost no sensitivity. Maybe this is her chance to spare these girls from that fate. Consider that possibility. Just... chew on it for a while.
Oh! Almost forgot the male doctor who is being so horribly demonized as a rapist and child molester. Let's give a hypothetical example for him. Maybe his sister had this condition. Maybe his mother had this condition. Maybe his WIFE had this condition! Maybe one of them was subjected to a more archaic procedure that left them with nerve damage. Perhaps he has his own personal reasons that run very dear to his heart, and he's seriously trying to help these girls. Did any of you even start to consider those possibilities? I know that in medical research, a lot of people fall into certain fields by chance, but a lot of other researchers try to find cures and treatments for diseases that have impacted themselves or someone they love. Did you consider that? Maybe you should before blindly demonizing this guy.
Now, as for the "stimulation" part of this study... the age RANGE for this part was 6 to 24. My guess is that most of the patients were in the older part of that range, but regardless, here are a couple of points to note:
1. This is not something where the doctors use a "toy" vibrator and stimulate the girl to arousal. It's a small probe (the same type used to test neuropathy and other nerve damage issues), and the length of contact is more "Can you feel that? Okay."
2. HOWEVER, I don't think this was a good idea for a study anyway. A verbal survey of the girls who are at least teenagers ("Are you satisfied with your level of sensitivity?) should be sufficient, and then, if the girls OVER the age of 18 wanted to volunteer for testing, then they can volunteer themselves.
3. Still, I wouldn't call this rape, sex abuse, or any of those other accusations I've seen tossed around. Yes, the ethics committee should have screened this study more carefully, and no, I don't think the stimulation portion was necessary, but it's NOT RAPE.
Next medical issue: Capillary refill testing. Do you know what capillary refill testing is? Try this: Press down on one of your fingernails for a couple of seconds (not very hard) and then remove the pressure. Watch how the tissue underneath the nail changes color as blood refills the capillaries. The amount of time the refill takes indicates HEALTHY CIRCULATION. After any sort of surgery, it's an important test to make sure that a person is getting enough blood flow. It can be performed on any part of the body, not just the fingernail. It's painless. It's quick. It's not sexual assault.
Okay, what about you folks who are set on the idea that parents and doctors should wait until these kids are 18 years old before letting them get the surgery? I can understand that philosophy. I can also understand that some people would argue that if they fix it before the kids are old enough to remember, it spares them the psychological trauma. Those arguments will go back and forth endlessly, and I'm not going to get involved in that one.
Yes, some people who are physically intersex have embraced their identities. Some people who have ambiguous genitalia decide not to get cosmetic surgery as adults. And some of them grow up not really sure who they are. Some of them have severe body image issues. I say this as a queer person; I don't identify as either gender. And still, I recognize how traumatizing it might be for a young girl to grow up with malformed genitals (not "large clitoris"; I mean MALFORMED).
To compare this delicate medical procedure with FGM, rape, or torture is an insult to medical professionals, and shows a gross misunderstanding on the part of people perpetuating this terminology. To compare this with homophobia (because lesbians often have larger clitorises) is ALSO obnoxious, and as a fairly masculine queer person, I find it offensive that this medical procedure would be considered homophobic. (So all of you folks getting up in arms about homophobia on this one, DROP IT. It makes you sound ignorant.)
So, here's my opinion, summarized:
1. I do not agree with physically testing nerve sensitivity on patients under the age of 16 for research purposes. (I think a 16-year old can consent. Many teenagers are sexually active, and they can make the decision of whether or not to participate in further research.)
2. This is NOT FGM.
3. This is not being perpetuated against women by men (an accusation I've seen on a couple of LJ's).
4. This is not rape.
5. This involves an actual medical condition, and as a biologist who works on a medical research campus who has been involved in the approval process of human research projects, I find the insults aimed at medical researchers to be off-putting at best, grotesquely insulting and libelous at worst.
6. While I do NOT completely agree that surgical intervention is the best or only approach to this condition, I believe that it's a legitimate approach, and is medically justifiable on a case-by-case basis.
7. My primary point is NOT about whether this procedure is a good one or not - it's all about the fact that too many people are jumping to conclusions, and really should read up before screaming about it.
Also, the brilliant and creative![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lizardspots posted about this issue, HERE. She's just about to finish up med school and has already been working directly with patients for a couple of years at this point, and quite sharp and fair-minded. Give her a listen, ok?
That's all I've got. If you want to argue with me, read the actual research paper first. If I decide to lock horns with someone over this, it would have to be a well-considered argument. I agree - the decision of whether to surgically "correct" genital malformations is a very touchy subject. The severity of the malformation different case to case, and only some girls have severe deformities. I think the decision is extremely personal to the individual if older, and the family if it's a baby, and can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. I'm not in those shoes, and I wouldn't dare to judge those decisions either way. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
If you read the research paper itself and come to different conclusions from mine based on the facts, then I can fully respect that. That's the nature of debate in medical research, and there will ALWAYS be differing opinions. I welcome that discussion. There's a lot of gray area in this sort of thing, and that's why rational discourse is so important. However, if anyone wants to continue to scream that this medical procedure is rape, torture, FGM, or sexual abuse... back up your argument with medical science before you click "reply."
Personally, I find it mind-boggling how many people are ONLY reading the ranty, non-scientific, highly-biased, slant-angled BLOG POSTS about this, and not reading the goddamned MEDICAL RESEARCH PAPER to see what was actually done! I've seen rant after rant linking to blog-post after blog-post like a line of dominos, but nobody is referencing the actual research paper. Nobody is linking it! Everyone is just screaming their heads off without even going back to the actual research paper.
Fandom, I'm disappointed in you. For all that so many of you are well-read individuals who seem willing to dig up source material, you're awfully quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream bloody murder about this. I'd guess that some of the people ranting don't have enough of a biomedical background to understand the research paper anyway, but for those of you who are able to untangle the med-speak, you owe it to yourself to read the actual source material.
READ IT: The actual published research paper. Until you read it, with comprehension, shut up. And stop "boosting the signal" of something you don't even understand. That makes you no better than Tea Partiers parroting Glenn Beck.
I have seen people call this research the following things:
Female genital mutilation, rape, sex abuse, child abuse, homophobia, trauma, sexual assault, and even torture.
To those of you who have BLINDLY SWALLOWED THIS LOAD OF BULLSHIT, how about doing some research before you jump to conclusions? Otherwise, you're blindly following propaganda, which is a bad thing, whether it's conservative or liberal propaganda. So let's dig into the issue a little bit, shall we?
Do you people know what this research is actually about? Do you UNDERSTAND that this procedure is NOT being done on "healthy little girls" whose only "problem" is that they have big clitorises? Do you understand what Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia is? (Probably not, so go here and read up before you say anything else.) Can you please wrap your heads around the idea that this is NOT about "slightly larger-than-normal" clits. These are girls whose clitorises are big enough AND MISSHAPEN so that they look like penises, and the REST of their genitals are also malformed. Labia may be fused together, blocking the opening to the vagina. Or they could be engorged, resembling testicle sacs. The entire genital structure is morphed, somewhere between male and female. Milder cases might not have any long-term problems, but for others, you're talking about a possible lifetime of sexual anguish and dysfunction.
In the paper, it mentions the lengths of these penis-like clitorises. The lengths don't seem very long, until you realize that these are the non-erect lengths of the PROTRUDING portion of the phallus on very small children, and some are almost equivalent to the penis lengths of boys that size.
The kids who are born with this condition start off in severely poor health due to endocrine system problems, and THOSE issues are treated immediately after birth. (Those problems can be life-threatening.) After the initial medical treatment for the life-threatening issues, parents decide how to proceed with the other issues based on the severity of malformation. Again, these are not "big clits." Go ahead and look up some pictures of people with this medical condition. Go on, do it. THAT'S what we're talking about here.
People should note that two of the researchers listed as authors of this research paper are women. Let's talk hypothetical for a moment. Maybe one of them was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Maybe she grew up with severe self-identity issues because she was a "girl with a penis" until finally having plastic surgery as a teenager, and then because of archaic surgical techniques, she was left with a clitoris that had almost no sensitivity. Maybe this is her chance to spare these girls from that fate. Consider that possibility. Just... chew on it for a while.
Oh! Almost forgot the male doctor who is being so horribly demonized as a rapist and child molester. Let's give a hypothetical example for him. Maybe his sister had this condition. Maybe his mother had this condition. Maybe his WIFE had this condition! Maybe one of them was subjected to a more archaic procedure that left them with nerve damage. Perhaps he has his own personal reasons that run very dear to his heart, and he's seriously trying to help these girls. Did any of you even start to consider those possibilities? I know that in medical research, a lot of people fall into certain fields by chance, but a lot of other researchers try to find cures and treatments for diseases that have impacted themselves or someone they love. Did you consider that? Maybe you should before blindly demonizing this guy.
Now, as for the "stimulation" part of this study... the age RANGE for this part was 6 to 24. My guess is that most of the patients were in the older part of that range, but regardless, here are a couple of points to note:
1. This is not something where the doctors use a "toy" vibrator and stimulate the girl to arousal. It's a small probe (the same type used to test neuropathy and other nerve damage issues), and the length of contact is more "Can you feel that? Okay."
2. HOWEVER, I don't think this was a good idea for a study anyway. A verbal survey of the girls who are at least teenagers ("Are you satisfied with your level of sensitivity?) should be sufficient, and then, if the girls OVER the age of 18 wanted to volunteer for testing, then they can volunteer themselves.
3. Still, I wouldn't call this rape, sex abuse, or any of those other accusations I've seen tossed around. Yes, the ethics committee should have screened this study more carefully, and no, I don't think the stimulation portion was necessary, but it's NOT RAPE.
Next medical issue: Capillary refill testing. Do you know what capillary refill testing is? Try this: Press down on one of your fingernails for a couple of seconds (not very hard) and then remove the pressure. Watch how the tissue underneath the nail changes color as blood refills the capillaries. The amount of time the refill takes indicates HEALTHY CIRCULATION. After any sort of surgery, it's an important test to make sure that a person is getting enough blood flow. It can be performed on any part of the body, not just the fingernail. It's painless. It's quick. It's not sexual assault.
Okay, what about you folks who are set on the idea that parents and doctors should wait until these kids are 18 years old before letting them get the surgery? I can understand that philosophy. I can also understand that some people would argue that if they fix it before the kids are old enough to remember, it spares them the psychological trauma. Those arguments will go back and forth endlessly, and I'm not going to get involved in that one.
Yes, some people who are physically intersex have embraced their identities. Some people who have ambiguous genitalia decide not to get cosmetic surgery as adults. And some of them grow up not really sure who they are. Some of them have severe body image issues. I say this as a queer person; I don't identify as either gender. And still, I recognize how traumatizing it might be for a young girl to grow up with malformed genitals (not "large clitoris"; I mean MALFORMED).
To compare this delicate medical procedure with FGM, rape, or torture is an insult to medical professionals, and shows a gross misunderstanding on the part of people perpetuating this terminology. To compare this with homophobia (because lesbians often have larger clitorises) is ALSO obnoxious, and as a fairly masculine queer person, I find it offensive that this medical procedure would be considered homophobic. (So all of you folks getting up in arms about homophobia on this one, DROP IT. It makes you sound ignorant.)
So, here's my opinion, summarized:
1. I do not agree with physically testing nerve sensitivity on patients under the age of 16 for research purposes. (I think a 16-year old can consent. Many teenagers are sexually active, and they can make the decision of whether or not to participate in further research.)
2. This is NOT FGM.
3. This is not being perpetuated against women by men (an accusation I've seen on a couple of LJ's).
4. This is not rape.
5. This involves an actual medical condition, and as a biologist who works on a medical research campus who has been involved in the approval process of human research projects, I find the insults aimed at medical researchers to be off-putting at best, grotesquely insulting and libelous at worst.
6. While I do NOT completely agree that surgical intervention is the best or only approach to this condition, I believe that it's a legitimate approach, and is medically justifiable on a case-by-case basis.
7. My primary point is NOT about whether this procedure is a good one or not - it's all about the fact that too many people are jumping to conclusions, and really should read up before screaming about it.
Also, the brilliant and creative
lizardspots posted about this issue, HERE. She's just about to finish up med school and has already been working directly with patients for a couple of years at this point, and quite sharp and fair-minded. Give her a listen, ok?That's all I've got. If you want to argue with me, read the actual research paper first. If I decide to lock horns with someone over this, it would have to be a well-considered argument. I agree - the decision of whether to surgically "correct" genital malformations is a very touchy subject. The severity of the malformation different case to case, and only some girls have severe deformities. I think the decision is extremely personal to the individual if older, and the family if it's a baby, and can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. I'm not in those shoes, and I wouldn't dare to judge those decisions either way. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
If you read the research paper itself and come to different conclusions from mine based on the facts, then I can fully respect that. That's the nature of debate in medical research, and there will ALWAYS be differing opinions. I welcome that discussion. There's a lot of gray area in this sort of thing, and that's why rational discourse is so important. However, if anyone wants to continue to scream that this medical procedure is rape, torture, FGM, or sexual abuse... back up your argument with medical science before you click "reply."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-06-18 11:40 pm (UTC)The points I was trying to make were that people in fandom were likely having a very emotional response and there were likely to be some that had been triggered. Sometimes one can be triggered and not realize it; that is, how it is affecting one's reactions and emotions.
Personally it does make me twitchy to see you call it not rape. There's a lot of emotion and politics and isms surrounding 'rape' and people wanting to decide what is real rape and who can be raped etc. And it gets brought up and swirls around and clouds things. Which is why I referred to my view on it as a sexual violation or possible sexual violation.
My apologies for phrasing things to assume you had not been raped by a medical professional. One never knows who has or hasn't had to deal with sexual assault.
If I had the wherewithall to do a full post on this, after reading your entry, I'd suggest that there's nothing wrong with writing out one's visceral response to a thing, as long a one was aware that was what was happening. That the writing was all reactive and emotional and discussing upset and was not actual reporting.There's a difference between journaling and journalism, which I feel is the point you are making.
I sincerely hope you find the spoons to write your own letter to Cornell. The more peers pointing out problem areas, the likelier they are to do something tangible for this and future projects.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-19 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-19 03:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-19 03:50 am (UTC)Is a pap smear rape? Is a colonoscopy a type of sodomy? What about a breast health exam? Mammogram? I hate to say it, but some people need to understand that not everything is sexual. Sometimes, a medical exam is JUST a medical exam.
I have never been sexually assaulted, but I've had my own traumas, as have many people. Different things infuriate or upset me based on my own experiences. I had one particularly vivid incident on the 4th of July a couple of years ago when the excessive use of small fireworks and firecrackers in my neighborhood gave me flashbacks to my time in the Army, and it was all I could do to keep myself from jumping behind a wall and reaching for a weapon, or dropping to the ground and low-crawling to safety. (Betcha you weren't expecting that.) And then there was the first Bad Incident I had with a medical procedure, which I won't describe because it would take too long, but in short, for a long time, I would panic at the mere thought of being sedated or given any sort of drug that hadn't been fully explained to me, and feared that they would do things while I was unconscious that I hadn't agreed to.
I'm not saying that people's emotional reactions are not without reason. Emotional reactions are what they are, and there's no need for anyone to explain or excuse them. They simply ARE. What I'm saying is that while I recognize the validity of people's own emotions based on their own past experiences, I do not and CAN NOT accept those visceral reactions as legitimate fuel for a witch hunt. Just as I can't demand that they outlaw firecrackers because I might zone out and suddenly think they're machine gun fire, people who have experienced sexual trauma shouldn't be dictating medical procedures they haven't even researched because they had a bad flashback. People are screaming to have the doctor fired from his job, legally investigated, and I even saw suggestions that he should be arrested... all based on the misinformation being spread blog-post to blog-post.
Writing a post about your own emotional response to something you read is fine.
Writing an extremely exaggerated or falsified description of something (whether intentionally or naively) in order to incite rage in other people is NOT fine.
Anyway... it's been an exhausting week. I should get some sleep.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-19 04:16 am (UTC)My thoughts were on whether or not the people doing all this write-up, were triggered and not realizing it; reacting emotionally and viscerally to err on the side of protection. And also my thoughts on the initial 'reporting' or 'popularizing' (that might be a better term) of the study and the story and how that might be playing into things.
You've made it very clear you've been following this a LOT more closely than I have and that all sorts of things are being said and labeled and interpreted - without checking source.
But re: pap smear and rape. That was my experience. The doctor wouldn't listen to me about the size speculum needed, hurt me so badly because of that I bled afterwards for three days, had me screaming so loudly several people came to the door but the doctor wouldn't let them in, and had the nurse holding me down. And had my partner of the time torn between also telling the doctor to stop and take it out, and holding my hand and trying to deal with me screaming and being so traumatized after, that I couldn't move.
Granted I have a past I flashed back to during that incident which compounded the situation - but that was also in my records.
It's not penetration, or stimulation that automatically makes something a violation - it's the how. To my mind at least.
Thank you for talking with me. Rest well. And no, it's not a surprise to find a soldier on livejournal or in fandom.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-19 05:30 am (UTC)And I also appreciate and respect your willingness to share a traumatizing experience. I will fully support the notion that there are true asshole doctors out there (I've met more than one) who don't give a shit about patient comfort, who are careless and harsh, and who violate the trust that they're supposed to validate. I'm sorry you encountered one of those.
You're absolutely right - it's not WHAT is done, but HOW it's done. Truth be told, that's the way it is with many things in this world.
I didn't think it would surprise you to find a Soldier (veteran, actually) in fandom. However, when people talk about "triggering" things in fandom, they almost always seem to be talking about rape, suicide, psychological disorders, and so on... but nobody in fandom seems to think of battle scenes, violence, or combat situations as "triggering." There's a reason I don't like war movies. Sci-fi and fantasy are different - the element of disbelief (it's not raw or real enough) glosses over the stuff that gets to me. Phaser fire and laser beams? Photon torpedoes? No problem. Get a machine gun going, however, and I'm damned near ready to go into battle mode. It's like a different personality "switches on." I can push myself in my own writing because I control the story and the pace, but some things just get to me.
And... fuck, why am I still awake? LOL.
Thank you for talking with me, too. Take care of yourself, and be well.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-19 07:31 am (UTC)But I also know one or two others who're both veterans of their childhoods and veterans of socio-political military engagements (deployments? the lingo is lost on me).
And now I'm getting my butt to bed.