American Academy of Pediatrics softens its stance on FGM

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Squeeeeeee it's so cute

Quote :

I'd just like to note that I agree with Mal on both issues, separate as they may be.

Thanks

Malganis wrote:

Hey,

Just wanted to say that I want to apologize for, as Cyber and others have said, derailing the original point of the thread with my own cause, and for, again as Cyber and others have said, conflating male circ and FGM together (and to a certain extent, intersexual genital alteration).

I never meant to put down the opinions of guys like gaijin, Penguin, and Mr. Doobie - that was not my intent at all. They have a perfect right to feel how they feel about their own bodies, and I never intended to challenge or try to change that. If I did come across like that, I sincerely apologize to you guys. Minimizing the feelings of others was never my intent.

I do feel that my conflation of male circ with FGM was in error - thanks for pointing that out, fellow WGWers. I still think that both are very wrong and are against human rights of bodily integrity, but they are separate issues, practiced by separate cultures and in different circumstances. If I seem to minimize the horror of one issue by maximizing my feelings of outrage against the other, for that, I apologize.

You all know why I feel the way I feel, so I'm not gonna bore you with that again. I just wanted to say that I've thought about how I come across here, I realize that my arguments are offensive to some people here, and, as Notanoni said earlier, am doing damage to my own cause. For that, I need to step back and think about what I'm saying, and apologize for it.

Thanks for reading yet another post filled with teal deer dancing through meadows and frolicking in the sunshine.

All is forgiven. You may now have a cookie.

If this is ture, it's revolting.

Quote :

A pediatric urologist at Cornell—Dix Poppas—has been operating on little girls with what he judges to be oversized clitorises, cutting away important clitoral tissues, and then stitching the glans to what remains of the shaft. Poppas claims that, unlike past clitoral-reduction procedures, his procedure is "nerve sparing."

He knows they're 'nerve sparing' how?

Quote :

At annual
visits after the surgery, while a parent watches, Poppas touches the
daughter’s surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator
and/or with a “vibratory device,” and the girl is asked to report to
Poppas how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the
vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and
the introitus of her vagina, asking her to report, on a scale of 0 (no
sensation) to 5 (maximum), how strongly she feels the touch.... Poppas
has indicated in this article and elsewhere that ideally he seeks to
conduct annual exams with these girls....

It's all very scientific.

/s

ZoZo wrote:

If this is ture, it's revolting.

Quote :

A pediatric urologist at Cornell—Dix Poppas—has been operating on little girls with what he judges to be oversized clitorises, cutting away important clitoral tissues, and then stitching the glans to what remains of the shaft. Poppas claims that, unlike past clitoral-reduction procedures, his procedure is "nerve sparing."

It's very true. Mothers (fathers too, possibly, but it tends to be mothes who see their daughter's genitalia more often) tend to get upset if their children's clits aren't perfect. "Is there something wrong with her?" "Does this mean she'll be hypersexual later in life?" "Is she going to go lesbian?" "What if potential boyfriends make fun of her?" Some doctors will do the surgery to cut the thing down some won't, but sometimes, a refusal to perform the surgery is not always enough ("Don't you see there's something wrong with her?"). I read a story where a doctor was saying how he refused to do it to a girl with about an inch long clit, and then a week later was called in to save the exact same girl from bleeding out when the mother recruited another doctor to do it who was reading the instructions out of a textbook. So yeah. It's huge.

Quote :

Here more specifically is, apparently, what is happening: At annual visits after the surgery, while a parent watches, Poppas touches the daughter’s surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator and/or with a “vibratory device,” and the girl is asked to report to Poppas how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and the introitus of her vagina, asking her to report, on a scale of 0 (no sensation) to 5 (maximum), how strongly she feels the touch.... Poppas has indicated in this article and elsewhere that ideally he seeks to conduct annual exams with these girls....

Effective? yes. Terrible? Yes. Makes you unsure if you should laugh or cry so you do both? Oh yes.

Quote :

Many have told us that the genital displays involved in the follow-up exams were more traumatic than any other part of the experience. Indeed, when I once asked a group of women with androgen insensitivity syndrome what they wanted me to work on primarily in my advocacy work, they said stopping the exams, particularly those in which med students, residents, and fellows parade through to check out the surgeon's handiwork.

Ok, now I know which I want to do.

Trivia wrote:

He knows they're 'nerve sparing' how?

Quote :

At annual
visits after the surgery, while a parent watches, Poppas touches the
daughter’s surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator
and/or with a “vibratory device,” and the girl is asked to report to
Poppas how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the
vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and
the introitus of her vagina, asking her to report, on a scale of 0 (no
sensation) to 5 (maximum), how strongly she feels the touch.... Poppas
has indicated in this article and elsewhere that ideally he seeks to
conduct annual exams with these girls....

It's all very scientific.

/s

I thought this shit was ILLEGAL here in America. Why is this man not being charged with sexual abuse and assault of these girls? Why is he not disbarred from practicing medicine and put in prison? How the fuck are their dumbfuck asshole parents not charged with child abuse and endangerment and thrown in prison right along with this bastard?

Jesus. wrote:

It's very true. Mothers (fathers too, possibly, but it tends to be mothes who see their daughter's genitalia more often) tend to get upset if their children's clits aren't perfect. "Is there something wrong with her?" "Does this mean she'll be hypersexual later in life?" "Is she going to go lesbian?" "What if potential boyfriends make fun of her?" Some doctors will do the surgery to cut the thing down some won't, but sometimes, a refusal to perform the surgery is not always enough ("Don't you see there's something wrong with her?"). I read a story where a doctor was saying how he refused to do it to a girl with about an inch long clit, and then a week later was called in to save the exact same girl from bleeding out when the mother recruited another doctor to do it who was reading the instructions out of a textbook. So yeah. It's huge.

You know, I knew this sort of shit was going on decades ago in America, but I had honestly hoped that we'd moved beyond it, that we'd said that cutting off parts of little girls' clitorises to make them more quote-unquote 'normal' was finished. As in, illegal.

Guess I was just being hopelessly optimistic and naive again.

Jesus., do you have more information about this? These surgeries seriously sound illegal.

Fuck, I hate my hypocritical, ass-backward, fucked-up society.

Malganis wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

It's very true. Mothers (fathers too, possibly, but it tends to be mothes who see their daughter's genitalia more often) tend to get upset if their children's clits aren't perfect. "Is there something wrong with her?" "Does this mean she'll be hypersexual later in life?" "Is she going to go lesbian?" "What if potential boyfriends make fun of her?" Some doctors will do the surgery to cut the thing down some won't, but sometimes, a refusal to perform the surgery is not always enough ("Don't you see there's something wrong with her?"). I read a story where a doctor was saying how he refused to do it to a girl with about an inch long clit, and then a week later was called in to save the exact same girl from bleeding out when the mother recruited another doctor to do it who was reading the instructions out of a textbook. So yeah. It's huge.

You know, I knew this sort of shit was going on decades ago in America, but I had honestly hoped that we'd moved beyond it, that we'd said that cutting off parts of little girls' clitorises to make them more quote-unquote 'normal' was finished. As in, illegal.

Guess I was just being hopelessly optimistic and naive again.

Jesus., do you have more information about this? These surgeries seriously sound illegal.

Fuck, I hate my hypocritical, ass-backward, fucked-up society.

All I have on that was the one story I read. It was a personal account by a woman who'd had it done to her, albiet years ago. It was heartbreaking to read. Honestly, I have no idea if it is illegal or not, but somehow most likely, I'd think it was not. There may be particular "levels" of FGM that are "acceptable" and that this may be one of them. The logic behind that of course is that its better for the child's sexual development, and not (supposedly) for the dudes they will hopefully be fucking and making babies with. So yeah. But like i said, I don't actually know.

Is his name seriously Dix Poppas

Oh God, Jesus, I read that story. That is absolutely fucking disgusting. That poor woman.

Jesus. wrote:

All I have on that was the one story I read. It was a personal account by a woman who'd had it done to her, albiet years ago. It was heartbreaking to read. Honestly, I have no idea if it is illegal or not, but somehow most likely, I'd think it was not. There may be particular "levels" of FGM that are "acceptable" and that this may be one of them. The logic behind that of course is that its better for the child's sexual development, and not (supposedly) for the dudes they will hopefully be fucking and making babies with. So yeah. But like i said, I don't actually know.

Reading the article now, and found this:

Quote :

The surgery is left out of the law against FGM because it is deemed
"necessary to the health of the child on whom it is performed." But as
social psychologist Suzanne Kessler at the State University of New York
at Purchase points out, "Genital ambiguity is corrected not because it
is threatening to the infant's life, but because it is threatening to
the infant's culture."

Great loophole, guys.

Also:

Quote :

In the 40 years since surgical intervention to "correct" genitals that
are viewed as abnormal was first prescribed, treatment protocols have
rarely been questioned. After all, it is much more comfortable for
doctors to assume all is well than to start digging around to find out
if it's really true. Until recently, all discussions of what is done to
people's sexual bodies have been hidden safely away in the pages of
medical texts, where real lives are only "interesting cases," and
pictures of genitals are disembodied curiosities or teaching tools.
Many doctors would like to keep things that way. For example. Dr.
Kenneth Glassberg, a pediatric urologist associated with the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), insists that people who speak up and tell
their stories are doing a disservice by "scaring patients away."

You know what? I said it before, and I'll say it again: FUCK YOU, AAP. You lily-livered moneygrubbing childraping genitalmangling soulless spineless brainless fucking COWARDS.

Also, found this, also by Martha Coventry.

Penguin wrote:

Is his name seriously Dix Poppas

Always with the Dix with you men, isn't it!?

Spoiler:

Penguin wrote:

Is his name seriously Dix Poppas

A small part of me hopes so.

Grown women are going into the doctor's office and getting their genitals "regular". But I never thought people would be brining their CHILDREN in to have it done. If you think it'll make boyfriends think your girl is ugly then go ahead and think that, but it's like giving your child a boob job. No reason behind it other then to make yourself feel good about how pretty your child is.

Please someone tell me no mothers are forcing their kids to have boob jobs....

Oh God, more on this practice

Quote :

One time I asked a surgeon who does these surgeries if he had any idea how women actually reach orgasm. What did he actually know, scientifically, about the functional physiology of the adult clitoris? He looked at me blankly, and then said, "But we're working on children." As if they were never going to grow up.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

Grown women are going into the doctor's office and getting their genitals "regular". But I never thought people would be brining their CHILDREN in to have it done. ... No reason behind it other then to make yourself feel good about how pretty your child is.

That's kind of the point of altering your kid's junk to fit an arbitrary societal standard.

*is still waiting to see if a firestorm of protest means that Dr. Poppas gets v&, hard*

ZoZo wrote:

Oh God, more on this practice

Quote :

One time I asked a surgeon who does these surgeries if he had any idea how women actually reach orgasm. What did he actually know, scientifically, about the functional physiology of the adult clitoris? He looked at me blankly, and then said, "But we're working on children." As if they were never going to grow up.

Actually, ZoZo, that's a fairly reasonable reaction from his point of view. I mean, after all, he works on children, he sees his patients when they're children. He doesn't see them years afterward. He doesn't live in their bodies. He doesn't care if they have problems later on - and why should he? He's already gotten and cashed his paycheck from it. After that, it's someone else's problem. From his point of view, they might as well never grow up.

Yeah, there's the possibility that one of them or some of them might get together and slap him with a lawsuit when they turn 18, or they might track him down and have some strong words with him, but what's the chances of that happening?

He's one callous, blank-minded bastard, but really, his mindset preserves what remains of his conscience -- and his probably rather fat bank account -- quite nicely.

Anyone else think that the dehumanizing, non-emotional viewpoint that doctors kinda have to take towards their patients aids in this mentality of not giving a shit about the person's future sexual functions as it pertains to childhood genital surgery? I know that doctors have to turn off their emotions when it comes to patients to some degree -- otherwise you'd have them breaking down in oncology wards or in ERs over the most horrific things. So there has to be a bit of an emotional callus there.

But every fuckin bit of this is just such a flagrant violation of the whole "Do No Harm" thing that I can't believe it's been going on for decades, in fact, around a century, in American medicine. I shouldn't still be surprised, but somehow I still am.

Also, the compartmentalization of different medical fields may aid in this compartmentalization and aiding and abetting of harm done to patients, as well. A pediatrician may do this to a girl and then years later another doctor may have to try to undo the work of someone else to help her to function better.

I'm not sure it's coldness, per se. Medical training is incredibly hierarchical--your superiors teach you "This is how we do it", and you're not meant to question it. I was once the only non-medic in a seminar on evidence based medicine. I embraced the idea--find out what works and what doesn't by looking at the literature. One of the medics genuinely couldn't understand how reading an aggregation of studies could possibly be better than asking your boss.

I think another problem is specialisation, though. I completely agree that he sees children every day, and therefore sexual function very much takes a back seat. After all, they're just kids, right? It's more important that they look normal, because they shouldn't be having any sex.

ZoZo wrote:

I'm not sure it's coldness, per se. Medical training is incredibly hierarchical--your superiors teach you "This is how we do it", and you're not meant to question it.

The incredible irony of this is that all of the advances in modern medicine have come from people bucking the trend and finding out a better way to do things. It's like we've ENTIRELY forgotten that once, washing one's hands before and after operating on someone was a novel and incredibly strange idea to the medical community. It's like the medical community thinks they're God and of course their shit never smells. It is so mind-numbingly arrogant.

Quote :

I think another problem is specialisation, though. I completely agree that he sees children every day, and therefore sexual function very much takes a back seat. After all, they're just kids, right? It's more important that they look normal, because they shouldn't be having any sex.

Another point: if he continues to think of them as children and only as children, he doesn't have to worry and lie awake at night, wondering if he fucked up someone's sexuality for life. That's just an issue for another lifetime and another person to deal with.

Malganis wrote:

I thought this shit was ILLEGAL here in America. Why is this man not being charged with sexual abuse and assault of these girls? Why is he not disbarred from practicing medicine and put in prison? How the fuck are their dumbfuck asshole parents not charged with child abuse and endangerment and thrown in prison right along with this bastard?

See what I mean about how we treat our little girl cubs? You didn't know this was happening. I didn't know this was happening.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

Grown women are going into the doctor's office and getting their genitals "regular". But I never thought people would be brining their CHILDREN in to have it done. If you think it'll make boyfriends think your girl is ugly then go ahead and think that, but it's like giving your child a boob job.

We teach our little girl cubs that they'll only be worthwhile if they can land a man. We teach them about dieting, makeup, high heels, not to be too smart, not to be too loud, and a thousand other self-micromanagement tasks so that they won't *horrors!* wind up ALONE. Genital plastic surgery - for grown women and little girls - is just the extreme end of it.

ZoZo wrote:

Oh God, more on this practice

Quote :

One time I asked a surgeon who does these surgeries if he had any idea how women actually reach orgasm. What did he actually know, scientifically, about the functional physiology of the adult clitoris? He looked at me blankly, and then said, "But we're working on children." As if they were never going to grow up.

There's a whole tangent we could go off on about how much the medical establishment knows about women's sexuality, and how female physiology is defined in terms of how much it differs from the Default Template. But I'm too disgusted by Dr. Molesterpants fingering little girls to see if they have an orgasm to go into further detail.

I'm going to bed pissed off tonight, that's for sure. What a snotbag.

You know what? I am now thoroughly convinced that the AAP has no position to even soften on FGM. I mean, this shit has been going on all the time, and they still refuse to actually listen to intersexual people who are fed up with having surgery forced on them. No, their position is that surgery should be done within six weeks to 15 months.

Well. That's good, I guess. Since they won't remember it and all, just have to live with the results for the rest of their lives...

So ol' Doc Dix is doin it rong by forcing surgery on 6-year-olds and raping their bodies, their emotions, and their memories... the conscientious doctor just does the surgical raping when the person is 6 weeks old... since that's too young to remember.

Quote :

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 51,000
pediatricians dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of
infants, children and young adults.

I call a great big heaping smelly pile of bullSHIT on that since they've proven over and over that they don't give a crap about girls or boys when it comes to forcing surgery on them to make them 'normal'. After all, it puts money in their pockets so why try to stop the flow of the gravy-train, eh?

A pox and a plague on all their houses.

Nihilist wrote:

The actual research paper

I really wish I hadn't read that. If he has this ttly awesum nu surgery technique!11!!!one!!!11!, why doesn't he do it on adults who can actually understand the risks and consent to this surgery for themselves?

Oh, wait, that option doesn't allow for him to poke little girls' clits with vibrators and Q-Tips. NEVER MIND

See where I think the whole "parents make medical descisons for and consent on behalf of their children all the time!" argument totally fails when it comes to shit like this? This is completely unnecessary surgery for the health and lives of these girls. Their parents may have had the legal right (and I don't think they should have it) to consent to it, but I sure as hell don't think they have the moral or ethical right. This surgery may or may not be physically detrimental, but I can certainly see where it would be incredibly emotionally and mentally detrimental.

And what can you say about doctors (and an association of doctors, like the AAP) that condones or appears to condone unnecessary, painful, possibly debilitating surgery on children that's performed simply for the sake of appearances, the whims of the parents, and the lining of the doctors' pockets? Completely unethical and total betrayers of the Hippocratic Oath, that's what I'd call 'em.

The research paper wrote:

We present 51 consecutive cases of nerve sparing ventral clitoroplasty performed by a single surgeon.

Oooooh. Aaaaaaah. Eeeeeeew.

The research paper wrote:

Management of the
physical and potential psychological effects faced by
these children and their families requires a compassionate
and multidisciplinary approach.1

But yet, not this one.

The research paper wrote:

The surgical treatment of
patients with ambiguous genitalia has been the focus of
debate for many years and it remains in large part unresolved.

Sounds to me like the medical profession's made up its mind already.

The research paper wrote:

Today, reduction clitoroplasty, where the
glans is preserved and part of the erectile bodies are excised,
is the most widely accepted and used technique.3

Yeah, but its there for a reason, asswipes. For sexual function. You wanna know why its controversial? You keep FUCKING WITH THEIR SEXUAL FUNCTION, YOU DUMBFUCKS.

The research paper wrote:

CST was performed using a cotton tip applicator.
Using a scale of 0—no sensation to 5—maximum sensation,
the patient was asked to report the degree of sensation at
various points of the inner thigh and genitalia (labia majora,
labia minora, vaginal introitus and clitoris).

Hmmn, fascenating. Somehow, asking a 5 year old how much they feel you put a cotton swab on their clit's just doesn't seem like that reliable a source.

The research paper wrote:

A biothesiometer is most commonly
used in testing for neurological diseases, such as
peripheral neuropathy.6 The device generates a vibratory
stimulus of varying amplitudes that can be gradually increased
until the sensation is perceived by patients. A quantitative
measure was established by recording the amplitude
of vibration (on a scale from 1 to 10), which correlated with
the threshold.

Can you feel me now? No. Can you feel me now? No.

Here's a retarded question. How many of them did comparative testing? i.e. Testing clitoral sensation before and THEN after so you have a real idea of the effects instead of "SEE? SEE? She still feels SOMETHING! That counts!"

Oooh. Wait. Sorry. They don't actually care about the children's sexual function. My mistake.

The research paper wrote:

Average values for the introitus, clitoris, labia and thigh
were 3.56, 1.61, 5.08, and 5,.83 respectively (see table).
Mean time after surgery for the patients who underwent
clitoral testing was 2.0
0.8 years. Two patients showed no
change in sensation when tested before and after clitoroplasty.

Oh, never mind. They did do comparative testing. 2 out of the 10 you arbitrarily decided you could test felt no change. Hooray. That makes it better.

The research paper wrote:

Despite these advances in operative technique,
the published literature describing surgical outcomes and
functional results reflect complications of older procedures
that are no longer used.

Thats because the same complications will still exist no matter what you fucking do. If you cut the clit, you leave scarring, which lowers sensation. You remove the clit, you remove sensation. You remove part of it, your remove part to ass of the sensation. What the fuck do you expect, morons?

The research paper wrote:

Reduction clitoroplasty in which part or the entire shaft
is excised with glans preservation is the most accepted and
widely used technique today. Various problems have been
associated with reduction clitoroplasty, ranging from loss of
sensation and sexual function to sloughing of the glans.16,17

The research paper wrote:

sloughing of the glans.

The research paper wrote:

sloughing of the glans.

The research paper wrote:

sloughing of the glans.

The research paper wrote:

In 2002, a consensus statement recommended that it is
crucial to preserve the neurovascular bundle, the glans and the
preputial skin of the glans if clitoral reduction is to be performed.
4 Preservation of the neurovascular bundle relies on an
intimate understanding of anatomy.

I'd say "Duh" right here, but my brain hurts to much from reading this stupid thing.

The research paper wrote:

This is a safe and reliable approach to correct the enlarged clitoris.

Thats what they said about the method before and the method before. When will you asshats realize that there IS no safe way to fuck with the clitoris?

Fuck you all.

Jesus. wrote:

The research paper wrote:

Management of the
physical and potential psychological effects faced by
these children and their families requires a compassionate
and multidisciplinary approach.1

But yet, not this one.

Note how that approach is not to say "Aw, fuck it, let the kid decide what s/he wants to do with her/his body when s/he is an adult."

Jesus. wrote:

The research paper wrote:

The surgical treatment of
patients with ambiguous genitalia has been the focus of
debate for many years and it remains in large part unresolved.

Sounds to me like the medical profession's made up its mind already.

Oh, of course. Wade through the forked-tongue AAP bullshit I linked to above, and note that they didn't deign to actually speak to or listen to the people who were harmed by their "compassionate, multidisciplinary approach".

Jesus. wrote:

The research paper wrote:

CST was performed using a cotton tip applicator. Using a scale of 0—no sensation to 5—maximum sensation, the patient was asked to report the degree of sensation at various points of the inner thigh and genitalia (labia majora, labia minora, vaginal introitus and clitoris).

Hmmn, fascenating. Somehow, asking a 5 year old how much they feel you put a cotton swab on their clit's just doesn't seem like that reliable a source.

Shit, yes. When I was five, I wouldn't have known how to answer that! Just that someone is asking... *shudders*

Jesus. wrote:

Here's a retarded question. How many of them did comparative testing?

That would really be the only way to tell, would it? Kinda telling that they did so little of it.

The research paper wrote:

Average values for the introitus, clitoris, labia and thigh were 3.56, 1.61, 5.08, and 5,.83 respectively (see table).

Okay, let's break this down. If that's 'respectively', and the scale is 0 to 5, and we assume this bullshit actually means anything (because how my brain processes sensations from my thigh can't be compared to the way my brain processes sensations from my clit), the clitoris was the LEAST sensitive of EVERYTHING ELSE.

The girls' clitoral sensations didn't even score an average of TWO on their Bullshitometer.

HHHHMMMMMMM.

Jesus. wrote:

The research paper wrote:

Despite these advances in operative technique, the published literature describing surgical outcomes and functional results reflect complications of older procedures that are no longer used.

Thats because the same complications will still exist no matter what you fucking do. If you cut the clit, you leave scarring, which lowers sensation. You remove the clit, you remove sensation. You remove part of it, your remove part to ass of the sensation. What the fuck do you expect, morons?

Dude, the entire edifice of the pratice of chopping off sexual tissue on children exists on the belief that it causes little to no damage. You can't think that they're gonna challenge that. These doctors are not gonna question their own shitty research, because that would mean asking themselves, "Hey, are we doing something wrong here? Morally wrong?" And that would mean calling into question the entire way that the American medical community treats little girls with large clits, intersex children, baby boys... everyone. It's like finding out you live in the fucking Matrix, only it's a matrix created by the assumptions that we are making these kids' lives better, not worse, despite what they might ever say to the contrary, and that cutting off healthy and normal (or at least normal to the person it's attached to) tissue is justified when said tissue doesn't 'conform'.

The research paper wrote:

This is a safe and reliable approach to correct the enlarged clitoris.

I love how they think it's something that they need to swoop down and correct. No one has ever considered the fact that maybe these girls will someday love their enlarged clits, either just because that's their body, or because they like large clits aesthetically, or because maybe they're FtM and having a large clitoris helps them in their adult transition. No one ever considers these things.

Malganis wrote:

The research paper wrote:

This is a safe and reliable approach to correct the enlarged clitoris.

I love how they think it's something that they need to swoop down and correct. No one has ever considered the fact that maybe these girls will someday love their enlarged clits, either just because that's their body, or because they like large clits aesthetically, or because maybe they're FtM and having a large clitoris helps them in their adult transition. No one ever considers these things.

Now, see, here's the question that I failed to consider before. Who is feeding this market for female genital muti- oh sorry, "correction"? Who is persuading who that it should be done? Are the parents begging the doctors or are the doctors "advising" the parents? I mean, these 51 girls weren't ordered from the nonconforming genitalia warehouse. Makes you wonder if, especially in this case, if the parents were concerned and the doctor persuaded them to try his new surgery, or else the parents seeked him out because he said his procedure is safer, and that he did more testing. You know, the conscientious ones.

Malganis wrote:

Okay, let's break this down. If that's 'respectively', and the scale is 0 to 5

I think it was actually 0-10. Not sure though.

Edit: it is. The Q tip thing was 0-5. The vibratory thingie was 1-10.