Genital Sugery by Gender [Archive] - Intersex Community Forums

Betsy

02-08-04, 10:43 PM

Unfortunately, in reading that bill, I see it as mostly symbolic as it is legally weak regarding intersex surgeries. One of the great charades and lies about IGM is that is framed as "medically necessary" by those who do it and advocate for it. Because they say it is medically necessary, the insurance companies pay for it no questions asked.

It's little bit of protectionism that will allow doctors to continue doing IGM with impunity.

A much better alternative would be to force hospitals and doctors to give full disclosure regarding the surgery and it's poor outcomes through easily understood studies and information.

I do believe that change will occur as more and more physicians (particularly those in training ) see IGM as fundementally wrong and stop recommending it as "a cure" for intersexuality. For those doctors currently doing, pressure needs to be brought on them to make it more difficult for them, including financial pressure if necessary through lawsuits and other financially punitive measures and actions.

Ultimately, it is society that needs to change to recognize and value difference, along with realizing that sexual differences are nothing to be ashamed of. Society and medicalization create the stigma and it is society and medicine that perpetuate as such.

My $.02

Betsy

Dana Gold

02-09-04, 11:26 AM

"Because they say it is medically necessary, the insurance companies pay for it no questions asked."

And that is the enigma; "medically necessary" is up to the doctor's, medical group's, and insurance's interpretation, rarely the "patient's.
Inre the Calif. bill: I guess 'Anything is NOT better than Zero' (my old saying) afterall.

"a cure" for intersexuality.

I think there should be a "cure" for 'heterosexuality and normalcy' concepts , that's where the all the trouble about intersex "pathology" started originally, " 'cause we don't look like they do."::rolleyes:

So, yes, it probably is true: one can pass all the laws in the world, doctors and others can and will find a way to get around them..in the name of "Normalcy"....:rolleyes:.:confused:

"'He means well' is useless unless he does well."
-Plautus

Dana

RGMCjim

02-09-04, 02:21 PM

I think that Insurance Companies - more than Doctors, clinics etc. are the best, 1st target for education about IGM.

Insurance companies hate paying for un-neccessary surgery. They are constantly demanding Doctors to account for why something is needed. It is actually becoming difficult to get neccessary treatment because they are so rabid.

If insurance (esp. HMOs) were lambasted with doubt about the neccessity, efficacy and success of IGM... if they were made aware that the surgery performs no health benefit ... if they were made aware that it isn't possible to perfect surgical techniques because each of us presents a different anatomy and that it's difficult and risky surgery even on full sized adults (for whom there are only a very few surgeons good enough to handle it)......THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors will loose interest in IGM if getting it paid for becomes difficult.

In my humble opinion, spend more time on educating Insurance companies. Money speaks louder than ethics.

Jim

Andi

02-09-04, 05:22 PM

"Insurance companies hate paying for un-neccessary surgery. They are constantly demanding Doctors to account for why something is needed. It is actually becoming difficult to get neccessary treatment because they are so rabid."

They hate paying for ANYTHING! I remember several years ago I came across the results of a poll. The poll was asking people what they thought was the most hated occupation (to those not in that particular occupation of course). I don't remember all the results but I do recall that Insurance Adjustor was the most hated, another Insurance job was 2nd or 3rd, and Drug Dealer was 4th. So, it seems people hate insurance companies more than drug cartels. (I wasn't surprised)

"If insurance (esp. HMOs) were lambasted with doubt about the neccessity, efficacy and success of IGM... if they were made aware that the surgery performs no health benefit ... if they were made aware that it isn't possible to perfect surgical techniques because each of us presents a different anatomy and that it's difficult and risky surgery even on full sized adults (for whom there are only a very few surgeons good enough to handle it)......THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors will loose interest in IGM if getting it paid for becomes difficult."

Oh definitely. For a long time I've believed doctors enter that profession solely for the money & all that about "helping people" is just a load of crap they use to try & appear compassionate. I'll refrain from saying more (I could go on for hours), since I know I'd only provoke a lot of arguement.

"In my humble opinion, spend more time on educating Insurance companies. Money speaks louder than ethics."

The sad fact is, you're absolutely right about that. :(

Jim [/B][/QUOTE]

Andi

Sunshine1

02-09-04, 07:34 PM

I have empathy that surgery isn't for all types of intersex conditions and each case is different.

The truth of the matter is that the surgery that I hate was needed to allow for mestrutration to flow out of my body. I'm thankful that the insurance company was there in my corner. I'm not a big fan of infant surgeries but I do like that they waited until I was five for any surgery and there was an inkling about what gender I "leaned" toward.

Do I feel they could of waited a little longer? Sure and psychological tests at the hospital agreed but the truth of the matter was that born with the genitals that I had that there was noway for bloodflow to pass.

I needed surgery before I was 12 and I wouldn't of wanted to wait untill I was 11 to see if the area was in working order. It was good that it was done at five (objectively) to make sure the area was ok to pass monthly blood at age 12.

You all are great people and have good things to say but I wanted to add that for some of us that surgery is in the cards.

Sincerely,

Aimee

RGMCjim

02-10-04, 03:16 PM

Aimee,
It is true that some intersexed people need surgery or hormones because there is a health problem that needs to be corrected.

I had vaginal imperforation too, and didn't even know I had a vagina until I was 44yrs old - I didn't menstruate because I don't have a fully formed uterus and my "ovaries" don't put out much hormone and it's been suggested could be ovo-testes. Once I found out it was there I wanted my vagina opened for sex, relief of urethral pain which the imperforation caused, and my new Dr. wanted it open for health testing. It's a problem that anyone with a vagina could have.

Urinary obstruction, a urethra that empties into a vagina...anything that causes real medical problems are valid reasons medical intervention because they are health problems.

A lot of the surgery forced on us has NOTHING to do with our health. What you, I an d many others didn't need was surgery that cut off our phallo-clits so we'd look more like the female average. That would have created health problems.

I guess it's very important for us all to be clear about that distinction. I don't think my post was clear enough.

Jim

Sunshine1

02-20-04, 10:38 PM

Dear Jim,

I've always enjoyed all your post ! Each intersex condition and person is so different even though there is some common ground for all of us : )

Having CAH and lacking the ability the ability to make cortisol. I need the hormone medicine hydrocortisone to not only suppress the excessive androgens but most important from my point of view is that the hydrocortisone is the replacement for the cortisol that other people such as yourself make naturally. If I don't have enough of the hydrocortisone in my body during times of physical stress (illness, accident, operation) I could die.

I went to a ENT doctor for something about my throat and I had to explain the difference between CAIS and CAH. He knew that there was different intersex conditions but he wasn't sure about what name went to what condition. Which wouldn't be so bad but I need the hydrocortisone to help me live through an operation and that is a part of the puzzle that I would hope is important to other people also.

I just hope that when they put the " I " with the GLBT that someone will remember that some conditions like CAH really do need medical help. Having a medical conditon like CAH put together with GLBT which are not medical conditions of course : ) just befundles me and it is my biggest fear that getting treatment in the ER will be even harder than it is now. Dead from an adrenal crisis because the ER doc didn't have the knowledge about the metabolically fucked- up CAH but he did know that it was part of the group of GLBTI......thanks???

I'm for choice when it comes to surgery and I'm glad that in my situation that all the surgery was done. I don't like that all that was available with the medical technology at the time was a clitoridectomy and I do cry in my beer about that and the surgeon does also right by my side so to speak but as a kid, I knew that surgery needed to be done. It's like a calm thing that I always knew and reflecting back just maybe it was a decesion that I had made in my mind as a five year old. I was Ok with what I was born with but I knew that something needed to be taken care of. My adopted parents were fine with how I was and as a five year old I remember my thinking being like this - I'm a girl...girl puppies are "smooth" and I should be too. I wasn't upset by any of this but it was just something that needed to be done.

It always amazes me when I read that the doctors think we don't know enough about our own bodies to make a decesion like this but I bet if they at least asked that there wouldn't be so many Intersex people trying to change back into the gender that they were meant to be. They think we can't deal with a decesion like that but they have no trouble doing all of those genital exams which do a great deal of damage to the psychological makeup of a 10 year old.

I'm lucky in that there was some psych testing done at the hospital that show that I went toward the female gender : ) i do think that for me that five was a good age. The notes from the testing did state that I could of waited a bit but I am so glad surgery was taken care of way before menestration.

Even though a female with CAH only has female chromosomes, two ovaries, and a uterus with no testes There was a chance that I might of identified as a male and I'm so glad that they took they time to find out that I did lean toward the female gender to match the female chromosomes. I wouldn't of been able to pull off being a male and I'm so glad that there wasn't some doctor there trying to force that on me like I've read with other conditions. I feel so bad for people that had that kind of crap done to them. Doctors need to leave guys born with micro penis alone also. Try to dupe someone into being a girl because of a small penis? What a rotton thing to do to another human being.

Someone of intermediate sex or Intersex should be allowed to hold off on a concrete gender assignment until later. Some of us fit into female or male and some of us don't and there is nothing wrong with that. I know people that don't have any Intersex condition and they don't fix into male or female either.

The surgery was good for me overall because I do like heterosexual men and I do identify in the female gender with some male gendered interest. Do I wish it was something better than the clitoridectomy? Yes ! but medicine isn't perfect and that was the best that could be offered at the time. It's not perfect and I feel that made the surgeon humbled that he wasn't able to make things completely better but I'll stand by him in his effort that he tried something. Being androgenous doesn't work for me and living in a male gendered role isn't me either.

I do support someone elses choice to totally reject the gender dichotomy born intersexed or not.

I guess we all find our place somewhere? I think you all are very special people that deserve to be happy and find peace.

Sincerely,

Aimee

RGMCjim

02-21-04, 02:26 PM

Aimee,
Because we have all assimilated falacies about sex and gender it is often very difficult for us to avoid confusing social identity, gender identity/expression/presentation with anatomical sex. We tend to think one defines the others, or if one is true others follow. That's not correct though and we have to deconstruct a whole lot of misinformation before we can begin to make sense of the relationship between bodies and their occupants.

Being male/female/intersexed is not a pathological condition. However, male/female/intersexed anatomy can suffer pathology. The more a Doctor knows about an individual the more he/she can access medical needs for the INDIVIDUAL as well as note overlap.

Being intersexed is not a sickness, but some intersexed anatomy is vulnerable to sickness. Some people with CAH don't need steroid treatment. Some do. You could very easily inform a physician that you have hormonal imbalances due to adrenal hyperplasia and never mention the word intersex, or introduce the concept of being sex/gender variant. Indeed, that is part of the way the concealment based approach to us works! Example: my need for testosterone replacement was always described as the result of testicular agenisis - not intersex. To me, and others this implied, but did not directly state that I was just like any other male but was lacking testes. It may be a pencil sketch but it's no portrait!! It left out so many details you could barely make out the picture, which actually contains a combination of male/female attributes and organs.

Using descriptive medical terminology we can describe any and every anatomical aspect of intersexed people without ever using the word intersex, or even implying that the result is sex/gender variance. Indeed, this is the purpose of descriptive terminology - it just draws a sketch. It left me too "sketchy" to make out so anyone could fill in what they wanted to see - not what I actually am. I wasn't in focus to anyone, especially myself.

What happens when being intersexed is reduced to a list of anatomical anomolies and possible associated pathologies? Well, it tells us a lot of very dry information about what intersex bodies can be like, and does nothing to encourage us to ask what being intersexed MEANS.

What is it like to live in an intersexed body, how does it affect and impact every tiny bit of our experience of life, our identities - our SELVES? Being intersexed, like being male or female affects absolutely everything about us and yet in the past we've been made to pretend that isn't true. What does it mean to us and the rest of the world when we stop pretending and seek our truth? How does it shape our intimate relationships? How will we impact the people around us? Where do we fit in, and where don't we fit in?

It's important to make sure our health care providers instruct themselves about the possible health ramifications associated with our different anatomy and physiology. But, I'm not very concerned that our development of a social identity as Intersexed People (GLBTI) will confuse Physicians about our physical needs if we don't forget the lessons taught by lesbians, gay men, transsexuals and women in general about asserting needs and demanding accountability.

I am CERTAIN that when medicine took control of our bodies/lives and subjected us to a concealment based social AND medical pathology that our personal and social identities were obliterated. We weren't just made social pariahs, some of us weren't just physically mutilated although that is bad enough. ALL OF US have been and are only just recovering from an assimilated false identity that never allowed us to seek our truth but instead taught us to believe we were something someone else told us we must be. Emergence from this place of darkness is the journey, quest and search that matters most to me. Figuring out what we are is a bump in the road. Figuring out who we are and what that means seems like Everest but once I started to climb I discovered it only looks insurmountable. Nevertheless we must resist the temptation to get stuck in the "what" and never move forward to the "who".

Jim

Sophie338

09-11-04, 11:58 AM

Hello Aimee :) Hello Jim :)

Aimee, I have read what you have said with some interest, you certainly have made me think of a few things I often question without thinking.

I dont "identify" as intersexed, and was born with 5 alpha reductase defiency, Only the presentation at birth was atypical. They tried to assign me as male and I became
angry about it (I would describe my feelings as wanting to kill the surgeon who did it to me with his so called "Severe hypospadia repair" which was nothing short of experimental phaloplasty in my opinion).

One thing that often strikes me is how medics in particular seldom mention the masculinising surgery above and beyond simple hypospadia repairs. And even then if it is more radical they play it down to this description. So they justified what they did to me by saying "You have XY Chromosomes". Yes I am also a genetecist and feel an few kilobases of DNA in tiny regions known as MSRs on one chromosome do not tell the whole story. Most genes that actually do the donkey work with resepct to sex determination lie elsewhere in the genome. But that was one of a number of "justifications" for them carving me up as an 18 month old child.

But yes this issue of Gender, as in Role I assume, that really gets to me. You see whatever my biological make up is, I dont think it reasonable for me to have been forced to live a life I grew to despise with a passion, To me the "role" they put on me was a means to stretch out the agony of the mutilation in the first place.

"Oh you must not express the fact that the surgery hurts, especially you must not cry in pain, that is not the tough and macho thing to do" (Talk of sadism) they mutilated me and then said "dont express pain or unhappiness over it because the surgery denines you in such a way that means you are being banned from expressing such emotions".

Punished for being punished for being punished for being born with no viable or "normal" reproductive tract.

I didnt even identify as female as a kid, I just identified as a child. Not "neuter" or "sexless" just a child. They went on about toy guns and dolls while I worried about my distended bladder and failing kidneys.

For me Gender has become probably a very sore point because it seems to be the lie that covers the truth about the biology. The XX = Girl XY = Boy is a case in point. According to "gender" a few kilobases of DNA define the entire Genome in ways not even homeobox genes do. The reality is far different, Look at Swyers syndrome, CAIS and so on. women with XY chromosomes, why is that so odd? I see that as part of natural variation. I see medical professionals who look upon situations like this as "Shamefull" and "to be kept a secret" somewhat arrogant quite frankly. Why attact stigma to a biological fact? Or rather deny it by stating XX = Girl XY = Boy. (When denying the reality, that a few functioning MSRs seem to intitiate male differentiation, but consensus in the rest of the genome must be reached to produce a phenotype of a male or a female).

the question I ask is..

Why did those who speak of the correctness of "gender" have to impose false and surgically constructed lies on my body, lies which I neither consented to or wanted?

I agree with you where you mention people reaching an age where they can decide for themselves what surgery they would want.

I identify as female, as this is where I have ended up after the total mess made of my body and my attempt to reclaim some sense of body integrity. I think for me the question really is, despite my going against the "originally assigned gender" was my "Going againt the originally assigned gender" because of the mess the surgery made of me as a kid and the fact that I came to associate "boy" with "being choppped about" or because I have some innate sense of being female.

I cannot answer that to be honest, and really wished I had been left alone by surgeons in order to work things out for myself. It is that sense of imposition and violation that surgery represents to me that makes me feel unsettled about gender issues in general. I really find it hard to relate to girly women and macho men, by that I mean the sort of people religious extremeist expect people to be. Because in that I just see scalpels. Or to quote a line from a song

"Stepford husbands Stepford wives marching round with sharpened knives."

So I myself dont have the sort of expereinces men and women have of being male or female. I just cannot cope with the extreme or the arbitrary, somethin which gender as a concept seems to embody. As a biologist I dont see sex differentiation as most would. I consider it a strange mystery that we have the level of dimorphism we have.

Sorry for rambling but this thread is giving me food for thought

Hugs :)

Sophie

RGMCjim

09-15-04, 08:09 AM

Sophie,

Only a few short years ago I didn't identify as Intersexed either. I had been convinced that I was "just like any other man" except that I had no testicles and a penis that had just started to begin to develop before it stopped. There was not a shred of truth in any of it.

Why did they cut you up to make you look more like a male with no regard to the trauma it caused you? Why did they feel they should intervene and hack you up without your consent, knowledge or control? Why do they say insane things like, "It is so socially important for men to pee in front of each other standing up that we MUST perform "corrective" hypospadias surgery even if it means loss of sensation, risk of impotence, risk of life-long incontinence, risk of chronic infection and potential loss of fertility."? I have no idea what kind of lunacy plagues them, but I've no question that people with such terrible psycho-sexual issues should not be holding surgeons knives or malpracticing medicine. Don't stay in that place of wondering why. It's a trap that can keep you stuck. We went through what we went through and now we are where we are. We can not change what's over, only where we go.

Biologists, zoologists, and farmers all know that the pervasive societal myth that there are only 2 sexes and 2 genders is make believe because they observe reality. It's the difference between living in the land of "what is" vs. living in the land of "what should".

Our greatest challenge is to dig ourselves out from under the fetid pile of "shoulds" we've been buried under in order to find the truths about our bodies, our personalities and our natures. That's a process, not an event. Sometimes I think it's like peeling off layers of paint. I think I'm down to the original wood only to discover there's still another layer to go.

Jim

Sophie338

09-15-04, 09:28 AM

Hello Jim :smile:

Only a few short years ago I didn't identify as Intersexed either. I had been convinced that I was "just like any other man" except that I had no testicles and a penis that had just started to begin to develop before it stopped. There was not a shred of truth in any of it.

I think for me it has been more of a reaction against the medical profession than any objection to the term itself. The only variant of "intersex" I will never really entertain is "intersexual". Having said this as a biological self determinist I tend not to allow my biology dictate who I am. Meaning that while the medical professionals in some way describe me as "biologically intersexed" (When they are being polite). I see myself as being much more than a medical statement. I know some use the word intersex to describe themselves in a more social context. I have just reached a point where I realised that I see the underlying biology completeley differently from the medics. And it is in this context I draw my arguments against them.

Of the questions I suspect my own answers would sound a little cynical.

Why did they cut you up to make you look more like a male with no regard to the trauma it caused you?

..because they knew that if masculinistion ever did work, I would not be in quite the same position to tell them they messed up. Because to them "male" is some superior state of being. (In a patriarchal sense). Also as being "male" is a liability with respect to the Herod Principle. (Men lead more dangerous lives) then they would be fortunate, because I would hopefully die before suing them. (This does make me wonder about those who think surgically making everyone male is a better option).

Why do they say insane things like, "It is so socially important for men to pee in front of each other standing up that we MUST perform "corrective" hypospadias surgery even if it means loss of sensation, risk of impotence, risk of life-long incontinence, risk of chronic infection and potential loss of fertility."?

Because to them a man (Or in my case "man") has to do things in a "manly" way. The associated risks were part of being "male" and thus acceptable in thier eyes.
(Actually what I had was more severe than the usual run of the mill hypospadia, but even so the damage in most cases can be as bad).

As you may have noticed I have grown to see the whole gender thing through rather cynical eyes. Wether or not my own assertions bear any resemblance to what thier actual motives were seems irrelevant to me, it was the physical act of carving me up as a child that angers me. The relativeley short period of "male socialisation" that ensued served only to rub my face in the fact that I was buthcered in the first place. But was in truth just a consequence, I tend to take the cynical approach I do instead of asking why, simply because the people who did it, and still do it,
get a nasty taste of what it feels like to be painted as something they are not and have all manner of hurtful theories circulating about them. They get a taste of thier own "medicine".

Today while I do percieve myself as being biologically distinct from men and women. I tend not to see that in a medicalised or socialised context, rather I see this as just a state of being that simply happens to exist. One comment you make is very similar in meaning to something I often say, the reason why people with scary psychosexual hangups are allowed to weild a scalpel is because they cannot simply envisage a life being lived that does not account for or is not accountable to the vagaries of gender.

When I was a kid I always asked why do people tell me I have "potential gender identity issues" when in truth it seemed like everyone else did on my behalf.

Like you I have scratched through layers and more layers and ended up at the bare bones biology, and see that sometimes what people describe as "unnatural" is in truth very much a part of nature, 5aRD is a part of nature like bees, cats, dogs and the common cold. It is how they percieved it and dealt with it that was the problem. I think thier biggest mistake was arrogance
they decided that my being intersexed was somehow an "illness" and then in thier folly inflicted an illness on me in the form of infections that destroyed much of what I was born with. The arrogance was manifest most afterwords when they continued along the path I was obviolusly not going to adapt to nor accept.

I know it may seem a bit of a gloomy outlook on my part and is possibly not easy for me to justify, But I do think that my having the ability to hit them with awkward questions is the best thing I feel I have gained from the experience.

All the best

Big Hug

(I love this emoticon)
:grouphug0

Sophie :smile:

Dana Gold

09-15-04, 11:50 AM

I have no idea what kind of lunacy plagues them, but I've no question that people with such terrible psycho-sexual issues should not be holding surgeons knives or malpracticing medicine.

During my years working as a nurse in various hospitals in the USA and Germany, I was able to see something that was quite noticeable to the nursing staff (predominantly female at that time) that perhaps was oblivious to those doctors (especially surgeons) we observed and "worked under".
Power, the ability to literally have control over a person's body as some in this society have over people's modes of thinking. In one hospital, in reference to certain arrogant surgeons, we would remark "here comes God". And, of course, the individual doctor or surgeon will have incorporated his (and nowadays more hers) socio-religious ideology within the approach to their practice. The American Medical Association (AMA) is an originally patriarchal and antiquated organiziation, having been formed and unified under certain "fundamental" (and most likely puritanical) principles from the early to mid 1800's It has not changed in its "philosophy" very much at all since then. Students entering and going through medical school, even though they are up-to-date on medical sciences, procedures, and protocol, are still learning within the same framework that was established by the "Fathers of Modern Medicine" from the late 1700's in Europe and the Colonies. Indeed the learning grounds of most (especially trauma) surgery was the battlefield.....and most during those times had nursing staff that consisted of nuns termed "sisters". Even in the 60's the nurses's uniform was quasi-patterned after nuns' habits (habit= "uniform"). So that is the foundation that is still in place today, changing ever so slowly, perhaps, but still the "base plate" is very strong....in other words medicine has not "evolved" past that time in social terms, only technically. Is it any wonder then , with the "nutritional background" of socio-religious moralism, patriarchy, and war that, what we see today, is the flesh that has formed over the skeleton of what Hippocrates and others originally intended. The Greeks were not so intrinsically bothered by androgyny or sex/sexual variations as the past and current "system" is. A system that has 1. homophobia as the moral standard from not knowing that, as Sophie has pointed out,sex/sexual variations are a natural result of human evolutionary processes AND 2. the guiding principle of "disease paranoia" most likely formed from encounters with the Bubonic Plague of old Europe, and other pestilences (Typhoid Fever) which were primarily a result of highly inadequate sanitiation facilities and people's erroneous concepts that they can "filth up" their environments and not expect any subsequent "reactions" to result from that human-induced imbalance in nature.

RGMCjim

09-15-04, 12:04 PM

Sophie,
I don't think you're cynical at all. It sounds to me like you have learned to refuse to take responcibility for other people's problems - one VERY hard thing to learn to do when we've been pressured from birth to feel "less than" other people. I am still struggling to get out of that place and your post sounded very positive, (not negative) to me. I got a lot out of it.

Dana,
That's a great hammer you've got there - you always seem to hit the nail on the head with such penache and grace.

Jim

Dana Gold

09-15-04, 12:23 PM

Jim,

Thank you, dear sir. But you too, have eloquent oration and your discussions and posts are very enlightening also. I especially thought your posts that talked of focusing on who we are... in addition (and more importantly so) to what we are was very valuable. :idea2: On a personal level, your concepts and wisdom have been very encouraging. Thank you again.

Dana :regular_s

Peter

09-15-04, 01:08 PM

These posts mention something that I often wonder about, which is the power of doctors. Sometimes, I hear intersex people mention that they believe that "doctors are in it for the money". I don't really agree with the position, but I usually let the remarks pass without comment.
I think that doctors are in it for far more than the money. I think that there are many psychosocial dynamics involved in the practice of intersex medicine. I feel that seeking medical control over a person's sex and gender is a strong case of "playing God". Dare I say it -- I think that doctors treating intersex conditions find the practice of intersex surgery sexy.
Once, I read a book called "The Transsexual Empire". It was an expose of the enormous medical empire built around transsexual surgery. Although I disagree with the position of the book, which is anti-TS on grounds that the only real women are born that way, it did detail something of the power of the medical industry in the area of genital surgery.
I see "intersex conditions" and "intersex identity" as two parts of a Gestalt figure (like one of those figures where you can either see a vase or the profile of two people depending of how you see the picture at the moment.)
If I am ever again given a ink blot test as part of a psychological evaluation, the next time I will answer that every ink blot reminds me of the genitals of doctors specializing in the treatment of intersex conditions.

No Pity, No Shame, No Surrender,

Peter

Sophie338

09-15-04, 01:33 PM

Hi Dana :smile:

Is it any wonder then , with the "nutritional background" of socio-religious moralism, patriarchy, and war that, what we see today, is the flesh that has formed over the skeleton of what Hippocrates and others originally intended. The Greeks were not so intrinsically bothered by androgyny or sex/sexual variations as the past and current "system" is.

Yes that is how I see it a lot of the time. What strikes me is how the control element of it seems so contrived by those who implement it. the idea of surgeons who look like James Roberston Justice lording it over a ward full of people like some holy visitation from God is actually an image that remains strong in my mind. In fact I see James Roberston Justice as an actor who parodied the arrogant stupididty of consultants wonderfully. Watch a film he was in and it is very obvious what the medical profession was about when I was a kid. Surgeons did sport bushy beards and blustered as if they were sitting on the throne of God. People did scurry and cringe at thier dark sarcasm and people such as myself were some sort of abomination that had to be made "human". And the problem was, (And probably still is) that the reality was (and still is) still close to the parody. OI would be lying if I said I did not enjoy knocking them off thier pedestals from time to time. And when that happens it gets interesting like how many "Principles" are adhrered to and defended because they are "standard practice" and "Standard practice" is invariably derived from the very historical elements you describe.

The moralism and religious undertones are as you imply, pallid memories of times when medicine was the preserve of the church. The technology has evolved beyond all that but the understanding (Including of the technology itself) has remained retrogressive.

I agree with you fully :smile:

Hugs :grouphug0

Sophie

Sophie338

09-15-04, 01:37 PM

hi Jim :smile:

I don't think you're cynical at all. It sounds to me like you have learned to refuse to take responcibility for other people's problems - one VERY hard thing to learn to do when we've been pressured from birth to feel "less than" other people. I am still struggling to get out of that place and your post sounded very positive, (not negative) to me. I got a lot out of it.

thanks :smile: This has helped me a little because I often feel nervous when writing to forums with my less than average opinions.

Hugs

:grouphug0

Sophie

Sophie338

09-15-04, 01:47 PM

Hi Peter :smile:

I think that doctors are in it for far more than the money. I think that there are many psychosocial dynamics involved in the practice of intersex medicine. I feel that seeking medical control over a person's sex and gender is a strong case of "playing God". Dare I say it -- I think that doctors treating intersex conditions find the practice of intersex surgery sexy.

That is spot on really. It is almost as if medicine is a religion and they are the preists within this religion. I find that there are many strong paralels with the way women were treated by the medical profession in the 19th century. as for Janice Raymond she robably draws on this and twists it to create this thing she has with Transsexual people. By asserting that transsexual women in particular are "Fantasising" about having that level of control asserted over them (Which seems a pretty daft claim to me).

But her observation and yours about the medical profession itself is something I have noticed as being quite telling also. Especially the inner dynamics of the medical mind in terms of the "Sexyness" of what they are doing.

Food for thought that

Hugs

:grouphug0

Sophie

Dana Gold

09-15-04, 02:44 PM

I think that doctors treating intersex conditions find the practice of intersex surgery sexy.

What more ultimate phantasmagoria for the surgeon (for those that are predisposed to it) than to fashion a vagina (or penis) to their specifications.
Having the final product "created" from their own hands and minds.

In the previous years that I lived in the "man's world" and listened to their "male remarks" about the female (and male! as in penis envy) sex organ, I have for a long time felt that for these people to have the female sex organ (and their own organ, as well) "the way they want it" , as in the "perfectly prepared entree" is their ultimate sexual fantasy. I also believe the institution of marriage between a "man and a woman" was initially constructed to "lawfully" legitimize the claim of the patriarch to the possession and control of his bride's body and sex. "Sex on demand" was the comment I heard one male say some years ago.

This twisted sexual fascination with intersexed (and transsexual) bodies is readily apparent when one peruses the many "hermaphrodite" and "she-male" porno sites, which proliferate the Internet. Although these "normal people" may find us "abnormal", their sexual brains are "squirming like toads" in anticipation of "charged eroticism". In light of all of the above, one may seriously consider these people to have a pronounced paraphilia, which we have on occassion seen from some who "wander" into BLO with fantasy requests of women with large clitorises. It brings into question who the "real deviants" are!

Sickening :sick:

miriam

09-15-04, 04:13 PM

Goedenavond,

This thread contains more generalizations than I can address in a serious reply. What is the use of statements you can’t prove? What is the use of doctor bashing? Does it make feel one better? Does it change the world? Let me add just one more generalization: intersex people are totally nuts. Of course this only concerns those people who are nuts…

But I’m sure that other people, especially non-intersex people, will agree with me when they read statements like:

Because to them "male" is some superior state of being. (In a patriarchal sense). Also as being "male" is a liability with respect to the Herod Principle. (Men lead more dangerous lives) then they would be fortunate, because I would hopefully die before suing them. (This does make me wonder about those who think surgically making everyone male is a better option).
Dear Sophie, if that would be true those doctors would have assigned the male sex to all their intersexes patients. But in reality they assigned many of their patients the male sex and some others the female sex.

Power, the ability to literally have control over a person's body as some in this society have over people's modes of thinking.
Dear Dana, do you really believe that anybody studies 8 or 12 years only to have control over a person’s body? There are easier ways to achieve that.

I think that doctors are in it for far more than the money. I think that there are many psychosocial dynamics involved in the practice of intersex medicine. I feel that seeking medical control over a person's sex and gender is a strong case of "playing God". Dare I say it -- I think that doctors treating intersex conditions find the practice of intersex surgery sexy.
Dear Peter, After these words I can’t blame doctors if they will ignore you. I understand that this is what YOU THINK. But if you want to change the world you have to use valid arguments and not insulting words.

In the previous years that I lived in the "man's world" and listened to their "male remarks" about the female (and male! as in penis envy) sex organ, I have for a long time felt that for these people to have the female sex organ (and their own organ, as well) "the way they want it" , as in the "perfectly prepared entree" is their ultimate sexual fantasy. I also believe the institution of marriage between a "man and a woman" was initially constructed to "lawfully" legitimize the claim of the patriarch to the possession and control of his bride's body and sex.
Dear Dana, that isn’t only true for guys! Unlike common believe even women can enjoy sex and even women can have sexual fantasies. And, btw, even women can share their sexual fantasies with their female friends. Differences between male and female are not as big as you seem to suggest here. But why do you mention those men here? What do you mean with your remark about marriage? The discussion was about doctors who want to have control over a person’s body (Sophie) and doctors who find intersex surgery sexy (Peter). I hope that your remarks about men do not mean that you think that intersex surgery is only done by male surgeons…

Groeten, Miriam

Dana Gold

09-15-04, 05:27 PM

Dear Miriam,

Thank you for noting the generalities that were spoken of. With all due respect, although being generalities, I might add that they are still my thoughts and feelings based upon what I have seen and experienced on a personal level. Without going into detail, what I said, I hold to....and though you may be entitled to your opinion, I am equally entitled to mine.....even though I committed the obvious misdemeanor of mentioning something not specifically relevant to the topic at hand, I will not retract those statements. I meant what I said. However, I will remember to post such thoughts and feeling under Speak Your Mind in the future....or I will restrict such in PM with those who I can hold these generalized discussions with, so that my rants and generalizations do not offend (or worse) mislead newcomers or other members into thinking that we live in a overall terrible society that overwhelmingly and at every opportuinity takes advantage of or abuses the rights and bodies of "lesser individuals" deemed so by contemorary society....which in some parts of this world are actual conditions. By the way, Miriam, one thing I have noticed, the Netherlands must be awfully progressive compared to the US. I would venture to say that on many social issues, they are way ahead of the US, which I believe has digressed somewhat with the resurgence of religious funndamentalism. The topics I spoke of, even of tangental manifestations of such "control" (institution of marriage) are still alive and well in many parts of the US, particularly in the more "fundamentalist regions". As for medics...I've worked in hospitals and interacted with them in their world. There are some good doctors out there...and some bad. I have been on "both sides of the fence", Miriam, both patient and caretaker,, male and female (and, with my women friends, we've shared our fantasies)... As for the "male remarks"...should I go into detail?.... I don't think women, even in their fantasies, are that crude and brutal as what I've heard. And these were "respectable husbands".....but again, not all men are like that, just those (as other examples) who are "pre-disposed" to it, as I wrote in reference to doctors in my original post......what I spoke of does exist , although, admittedly, not as widespread as my rants may have indicated. And my mentioning historical aspects of marriage etal was to exemplify the origins and progression of the mind-set that led to the current medical system's social philosophy inre all sex/sexual variances and it's "treatment standards" based upon centuries-old ways of thinking and doing.

Anyway, enough.

Dana

Sophie338

09-15-04, 05:29 PM

Hello Miriam :smile:

how are you :smile:

Dear Sophie, if that would be true those doctors would have assigned the male sex to all their intersexes patients. But in reality they assigned many of their patients the male sex and some others the female sex.

you will be relieved to know that there is method behind my statements, which I did try to put in context. If I may quote myself.

As you may have noticed I have grown to see the whole gender thing through rather cynical eyes. Wether or not my own assertions bear any resemblance to what thier actual motives were seems irrelevant to me, it was the physical act of carving me up as a child that angers me.

And also..

I tend to take the cynical approach I do instead of asking why, simply because the people who did it, and still do it,
get a nasty taste of what it feels like to be painted as something they are not and have all manner of hurtful theories circulating about them. They get a taste of thier own "medicine".

The point I have been making is twofold, Firstly that whatever surgery is carried out masculinising or feminising, it is basically not a good thing to do because no one can actually get into the mind of those who decided to proceed with the surgery, they can only live with the effect of it and be left asking why. I basically gave up on this approach and took the approach of mirroring the attitude I felt was shown to me as a child and putting this mirror if you like back into the face of the medics on my case. Basically to let them see how they looked in my eyes and let them know how it feels to be subjected to the very generalisations you have commented on.

Secondly I feel that some medical professionals have been debating the idea of masculinising instead of feminising. This is after people have expressed many concerns over surgery in general. Scalpels cut, does not matter which direction they go. the end result invariably hurts. when this is undertaken without consent and an apparent good reason. Again I am left wondering why they would say non consented feminising procedures are bad, but remain quiet (Remarkably quiet as it happens) about the damage done by masculinising procedures which have taken place. My comment was in some sense a rather cynical expression of these two points. There is often method to my madness.

This thread contains more generalizations than I can address in a serious reply. What is the use of statements you can’t prove? What is the use of doctor bashing? Does it make feel one better? Does it change the world? Let me add just one more generalization: intersex people are totally nuts. Of course this only concerns those people who are nuts…

As you may well know that generalisation was commonplace, often I have read many older text book to find descriptions of intersex people as being mentally deficient in some way, It is utter rubbish, but as a child being on the recieving end of this perception, I found that hard to cope with, Hence my first point in this post, about mirroring this The claim that all medics are rabid phalocrats and control freaks does illustrate the point I am making. If any medical professional reads that and then reads the explanation I have given for those statements, hopefully that will provide some challenging food for thought.

Having said all this I am very angry with what was done to me as a child and I have tried the most restrained way of illustrating why I, Personally, feel so angry. The only way I found myself able to do this has been to put them in the same position as myself in a manner of speaking.

Big Hug

:grouphug0

Sophie.

Sophie338

09-15-04, 05:38 PM

Hello Again Miriam :smile:

I have just re-thought this since posting. For me personally the issue is predominantly about the physical effect the surgery had on me. Which was really bad, and for most of my life seemed to be done without any sane motive. the way I deal with it is by posing really difficult questions and challenging arguments to express why I have such strong objections to the surgery.

:grouphug0

Peter

09-15-04, 06:56 PM

Hi Miriam,

I don't think that I am being unnecessarily rude by questioning the motives of doctors treating intersex conditions. Unless one is restricted to simple materialist positions that doctors are in it for the money, or narrow self-interest of "doing good", then I think it is fair to discuss the psychosocial dynamics of infant genital surgery performed without the consent of the intersex child. I do not want to reduce matters to a "sociology of knowledge", but I find I interesting that both you and Jules who had positive experiences with doctors are reluctant to embrace any change in current medical practices.

On a rudeness scale, what is ruder?

1) Performing infant genital surgery on a child without the child's consent as is commonly done by doctors and was done to me.

2) Patients having negative thoughts later in life about doctors who performed non-consensual genital surgeries on them when they were young.

My answer to this is that number one is far ruder. Yes, I want to change the world by eliminating the practices outlined in number one. I understand that courts in the country of Colombia have made great progress in the legal arena, and I would like some of these changes implemented in the United States following their legal model for the protection of intersex children. When it comes to basic human rights, it would be nice if doctors respected me, but in the end it is not necessary.

Peter

Sophie338

09-16-04, 01:34 PM

Hello Miriam :smile:

I have slept on this discussion for a while and remembered another post you made a while back which may be relevant to this discussion.

But we should also understand that not every hypospadia is an intersex condition. For that reason I feel it’s too easy to say that all surgery should stop. Medical professionals try to help us and it is obvious that they make mistakes. But there are also many people who are happy with their treatment. When we ask doctors to stop surgery, we ask them to do nothing. That means that we will never again see intersex people who regret that their doctor took a decision. But doing nothing will also mean that some patients will regret that their doctor did nothing. In other words: by doing nothing doctors would be responsible for the same errors as we've seen before, only with another group of people.

This was I believe, in responce to my claim that if medics dont define someone as "intersex" then that makes it easier then for then to define the surgery as "Corrective" and would not be percieved as being as drastic as the sort of thing Money did. but the thing about surgery is relevant, whatever term is applied. The bare faced fact remains that intervention is done way to early, without any real consideration to the impact this would have. You counter this with the idea that not intervening could in some circumstances be just as damaging, Thing is, how can anyone predict that for each individual case?

One thing I will stress which really got me angry with the medical profession was how as I was growing and expressing extreme discomfort with what they had done, they carried on regardless. They were seeing the outcome unfold before thier eyes and did not adapt accordingly. They bliindly made matters worse.

I remember your comment about a number of medical profesionals saying that people with 5aRD always identify as male, and that I had quite a long way to go to clarify that this is not so.

But who would these medics be to make such an assumption if they were not suffering some God complex. If I was born the way I was, only today, and was in the "Care" of such an individual, they would most likeley put me through the same, knowing more about the condition I have, which would make them even more culpable, when I was a child 5aRD wasnot that well known.

Peter mentions Stepford Doctors. and I have to go along with that really.
I do know the European approach is more inclined towards including medics in the debate at a much greater level. It does not alter the fact that the rationale they seem to adopt has the same godlike undertones. In some ways it can be harder to criticise them because of the closer involvement they have.

I suspect that if someone is today born with the same condition and clinical presentation I had as a child. They will in all probability live through the same nigthmare. Has anything changed? If what I suspect turns out to be true then, no it has not.

You talk of generalisations of medics, but here i believe a long running generalisation about my condition has only become more acceptable. And would probably result in similar negative consequences to those I have expereinced.

When I criticise surgery,and the probable motivations driving those who conduct such surgery, I find it hard to avoid the feeling that God complexes and dogma are involved. Whichever approach is dopted with respect to the medical profession, if nothing changes for some people subjected to these treatments they employ, It is worrying.

Dont get me wrong in many guidelines, even from medics I know and otherwise trust. "5aRD = Boy or else, grow up and live by Herodian rules" is still a not uncommon dogma. And this is even after consultation. Do I have to put up with that when someone else with a different condition does not? It just makes my feeling got at by the medical profession even more impersonally personal than before.

The truth is surgery or no surgery, the outcome is unpredictable, Sexing surgery complicates matters quite often, can they just try to minimise the physical pain? Ultimateley it is my body, I have to live with it, I should be allowed to decide what I feel is best for me.

Whatever my comments about the medical profession may say to some people, there is that question of biological autonomy. And human rights.
and while the emphasis is on the medical profesionalmaking all the decisions or
mutilation by gender proxy (All 5aRD are men etc etc ad nausea). Then Autonomy and human rights arguments will not be adressed nor go away.

I have had rotten expereinces with the medical profession,I see the potential for this to happen again to some poor kid today. I dont want that.
Sorry for putting it so strongly but I think the generalisations I made can be validated by observation, the precice level of observation they use to validate thier opinion of someone with a condition like mine.

Allthe best :smile:

Hugs

:grouphug0

Sophie

Betsy

09-16-04, 01:51 PM

On a rudeness scale, what is ruder?

I really agree with Peter on this. Surgically altering someone elses body is truly the height of rudeness. Those who do surgery presume to know the outcome before an outcome can possibly be known. That is rather Godlike, no? Physicians like Ken Glassberg here in the NYC area who will state on camera in a news program (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_intersex_020419.html) that people he's never met and who escaped surgery (and are grateful for it) would have been better off had they had surgery is the height of rudeness and generalizations. Surgery that is standard procedure for the most part despite the overwhelming lack of follow-up studies is generalizing an assumed outcome. I sat on a panel last year that Glassberg was also on; trust me when I say he does think he has providence over the lives of children born with a body that falls outside of his definition of standard.

These doctors need to have their feet held to the fire. There needs to be people nipping at their heels demanding to know why they do these surgeries and questioning them on their own generalizations and assumptions. Change is a two-way street.

Betsy

Sophie338

09-16-04, 02:05 PM

Hi Betsy :smile:

i just read it.

Many doctors believe that operating on an intersex baby's genitals within the child's first year is best for both the child and the parents.

"We believe operating on the genitals in infants is psychologically better to do when the child is younger," says Dr. Kenneth Glassberg, a pediatric urologist. "I think the individual who is not operated on will have problems in society as we know it today."

I think the word "rude" would be an understatement were I to post my opinion of the likes of Glassberg.

:cartman:

I just have a passionate hatred of people who mutilate kids and claim it to be "for the best" I cannot help it.

Hugs :grouphug0

Sophie

Dana Gold

09-16-04, 03:15 PM

"I think the individual who is not operated on will have problems in society as we know it today."

The way I see it: The above quotes real (covered up) meaning: " I think the individual is the problem in society as we know it today...so they will be operated on".

The original quote in itself is a sweeping generalization and ....noone, even with all the medical knowledge in the known world, can predict with 100% accuracy future outcomes of present day events, especially with sex/gender-altering medical treatments. The ones who propose this "umbrella treatment" don't even seem to understand sex-gender variations in nature enough to begin with, other than it is abnormal development to them, first and foremost. According to medicine's own dictum, treatment (proferred or forced ) when the attending physician doesn't even fully understand the initial condition is equivalent to risky practice, with possible mild to significant detrimental clinical consequences for the patient.

Sophie338

09-16-04, 03:25 PM

Hi Dana :smile:

The way I see it: The above quotes real (covered up) meaning: " I think the individual is the problem in society as we know it today...so they will be operated on".

Yes, it is fascinating how one often cited excuse of this ilk is "We operate so they wont be bullied at school". What would that mean if it were not "Do not offend bullies, they are more important".

Glassberg is allowing society to have a sort of collective munchausens by proxy basically. Glassberg has the morals and ethics of a sewer rat.

Hugs :grouphug0

Sophie.

miriam

09-16-04, 03:57 PM

Hi Peter,

I don't think that I am being unnecessarily rude by questioning the motives of doctors treating intersex conditions. Unless one is restricted to simple materialist positions that doctors are in it for the money, or narrow self-interest of "doing good", then I think it is fair to discuss the psychosocial dynamics of infant genital surgery performed without the consent of the intersex child.

I’m not questioning your right to questioning the motives of a doctor. I’m questioning the arguments you use. You say something that you can't prove and that is also highly offensive. But the doctors you accuse have valid arguments they can use to prove that you are not right. Some doctors, especially those from the time you and I were children, took decisions without any scientific justified research. Sometimes they did that because no scientific research was available. Some other medics did it because they were under the impression that the little scientific research that was done, was not reliable. And indeed, some medics took unjustifiable decisions just because they were listening to parents or to their own ego.

But all of those doctors, both good and bad, are retired, senile or dead (or a combination of this three). Today you are dealing with doctors that were kids when you and I were treated. Leaving out the doctors who are just morons, dinosaurs who refuse to listen to the peer support groups and who simply ignore the result of the latest scientific research, you now have a new generation of medical professionals.

And even the medics from that new generation sometimes decide to operate. We’ve talked a lot about this at BLO and I and others gave some pretty clear examples of why it sometimes is necessary to operate on an intersex body.

If you don’t recognize that this new generation of medical professional have to take decisions that you can’t answer with the mantra ‘no surgery’, if you don’t recognize that this new generation is doing everything possible to prevent errors and if you don’t recognize that they will take the decisions based on the latest research results… well, then you are just a dinosaur like the medics I mentioned before.

I do not want to reduce matters to a "sociology of knowledge", but I find I interesting that both you and Jules who had positive experiences with doctors are reluctant to embrace any change in current medical practices.

Hear, hear, a personal approach… Peter, the way you’ve put this implies that you want to discriminate between those who suffered and those who suffered more. But first, you don’t have the right to make this difference and, second, you don’t know my history so don’t try to analyze me.

On a rudeness scale, what is ruder?

1) Performing infant genital surgery on a child without the child's consent as is commonly done by doctors and was done to me.

2) Patients having negative thoughts later in life about doctors who performed non-consensual genital surgeries on them when they were young.

My answer to this is that number one is far ruder.

The discussion was not about who was the rudest, although I’m happy to see that you think that your words about the motives of doctors are quite rude. I was telling you that with rude words you will not convince anyone but the people who already think that every medicine is bad medicine. That’s why I asked in my previous post WHY those generalizations were used:

What is the use of statements you can’t prove? What is the use of doctor bashing? Does it make feel one better? Does it change the world?

Those questions were rhetorical, but I know that it works for yourself to say unreasonable things about the people who made you angry. When someone made me very angry I always start this way, but I do it in a way that the other person can’t hear me. Because it doesn’t solve anything when that person would get angry too. That would not solve our dispute. So after being unreasonable I always go back to that person and give him/her my opinion. That works, and you know that as well as I do.

So I’m not telling you to stop being unreasonable, it really has its use at a certain moment. But don’t do that in a place were your remarks will be read by other people who don’t understand that being unreasonable helps to cope with bad experiences. Unless, of cause, you really believe that offending medical professionals is the best way to change the world.

Yes, I want to change the world by eliminating the practices outlined in number one. I understand that courts in the country of Colombia have made great progress in the legal arena, and I would like some of these changes implemented in the United States following their legal model for the protection of intersex children.

In that case you better start to gather valid arguments because offending words have never changed the opinion of a judge.

I don’t know much about Colombia but are you talking about the two decisions of the Constitutional Court of Colombia that date back from 1999 (SU-337/99, May 12 1999 and T-551/99, Aug 2, 1999)? In those cases the court decided that surgery is possible if all information concerning the risks of surgery is communicated on at least two separate occasions over the course of several weeks, to ensure that the parents have a complete understanding of the nature and consequences of such surgery and the court also decided that the risks of surgery have to be summarized in writing. That is closer to the way I think about surgery than it is to your point of view. And as far as I know medical professionals in many European countries use a far more restrictive protocol than the protocol outlined in the decision of the Constitutional Court of Colombia.

Peter, we both agree that the dinosaurs have to be stopped, but the difference between you and me is that you think that every medical professional who is involved in the surgery of intersex children is a dinosaur. In your post you wrote that I am reluctant to embrace any change in current medical practices. But it seems that YOU are the one here who is reluctant.

When it comes to basic human rights, it would be nice if doctors respected me, but in the end it is not necessary.
But it would be nice if intersex people would respect you and that is only possible when you respect other people. I respect your opinion, Peter, but I can’t respect your way of argumentation because the method of reasoning you use doesn’t show respect for your opponents.

Groeten, Miriam

Betsy

09-16-04, 04:20 PM

If you don’t recognize that this new generation of medical professional have to take decisions that you can’t answer with the mantra ‘no surgery’, if you don’t recognize that this new generation is doing everything possible to prevent errors and if you don’t recognize that they will take the decisions based on the latest research results…

Miriam, I'm surprised you would post such an inaccurate statement. Perhaps medicine in the US and Netherlands is so incredibly worlds apart that you are unaware of what is the current state of affairs here. Physicians here still routinely do not tell parents the entire and true diagnosis. They still tell parents that girls with big clits will most certainly be lesbians even though there is no research supporting that fact. They don't tell parents there is no research indicating good outcomes with surgery. They don't share with parents the excellent research that Crieghton and Minto and others in the UK are doing. They still think those of us opposed to surgery want a third gender and that bodies which don't conform to their ideals of standard male and female are "unfinished" (Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., C. J. Migeon, et al. (2004). "Attitudes of adult 46,xy intersex persons to clinical management policies." Journal of Urology 171: 1615-9.)

Read a story here about a mom who was told by her daughter's urologist that a decision for clitoral surgery will be as simple as the one she'll make when her daughter is 16 and they are considering buying her a car: http://www.bodieslikeours.org/personalstories/Juliasstory.htm This is a recent event within the past few years.

Having read your post below and others, I get the feeling that you think meekly approaching physicians and asking them to please stop would be sufficient. Unfortunately, it won't work that way. Sure, some are changing but it's truly only a few. The sad part is the dinosaurs that you think are dead, retired or no longer practicing haven't gone away. They are now training the new generation of doctors you speak so highly of. Except for the dead ones that is. But even Money is still on the payroll at JHU.

Betsy

Dana Gold

09-16-04, 04:38 PM

medicine in the US and Denmark is so incredibly worlds apart

I do believe that may be the case. Western Europe and especially Miriam's land, the Netherlands ( Dutch) are much more socially aware and accepting than the US. When I went back to Germany in 1968, I was surprised at the level of social progression that was in blunt contrast to the USA, especially sexually. I almost felt as if I had come from a land of primitives and puritans. When I related further on some social conditions in America, some Europeans ( I interacted with people from other nations while there) were somewhat puzzled as to why that would be so in the supposedly exemplar land of democracy and human rights.....and this was post-war (Nazi) Germany!
Of course, this is my opinion, and how things are in their medical world at this time inre intersex surgeries, I can only guess. But certainly socio-medical/political conditions reflect in people's ethics and practices and the degree to which the people of the land are empowered. And it would appear,according to Miriam, that the communication between the European people and their medics ( in re intersex ) is on a different level than here in the US, or they have learned from their experiences with each other.
But then only Miriam can tell us the real difference.

Dana

miriam

09-16-04, 05:07 PM

Miriam, I'm surprised you would post such an inaccurate statement. Perhaps medicine in the US and Denmark is so incredibly worlds apart that you are unaware of what is the current state of affairs here. Physicians here still routinely do not tell parents the entire and true diagnosis. They still tell parents that girls with big clits will most certainly be lesbians even though there is no research supporting that fact. They don't tell parents there is no research indicating good outcomes with surgery. They don't share with parents the excellent research that Crieghton and Minto and others in the UK are doing. They still think those of us opposed to surgery want a third gender and that bodies which don't conform to their ideals of standard male and female are "unfinished" (Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., C. J. Migeon, et al. (2004). "Attitudes of adult 46,xy intersex persons to clinical management policies." Journal of Urology 171: 1615-9.)

Dear Betsy, my statement is not inaccurate at all. In the quote above I emphasized the word here because that is an important aspect of the discussion. All I said is that there is a new generation of medical professionals. Peter didn’t restrict his remarks to certain surgeons in the USA and neither did I. You know as well as I do that research on intersex conditions AND new ideas about the treatment don’t come from the USA. Indeed, in Europe we are a bit ahead of the US. And I believe that this is an understatement. But BLO is an international community, so it would be fair not to insult the new generation of medical professionals like Creighton, Minto and many, many others, who indeed don’t live in the USA.

Having read your post below and others, I get the feeling that you think meekly approaching physicians and asking them to please stop would be sufficient. Unfortunately, it won't work that way. Sure, some are changing but it's truly only a few. The sad part is the dinosaurs that you think are dead, retired or no longer practicing haven't gone away. They are now training the new generation of doctors you speak so highly of. Except for the dead ones that is. But even Money is still on the payroll at JHU.

Suggesting that I “meekly approach physicians and ask then to please stop” is not a realistic description of the work intersex activists do in Europe. It’s true, we don’t yell, we don’t sue, but we do get things changed and that takes a lot more energy and time than you suggest here. The Dutch, UK and German peers support groups are quite influential when it comes to discussing our interests with the medical professionals.

Groeten, Miriam

Sophie338

09-16-04, 05:29 PM

Hello Miriam. :smile:

OK you re right about people like Crieghton and Minto, fair point. that is a good point. and is to do with national differences. But. (orry there is a but)
Laa the dinasours are not dead, look at Glassberg, he has the ehics and morals of a sewer rat.

And with the "no surgery" mantra, or trying to predict the best outcome. from what I can see, someone such as myself fares no better now, than I did years ago.I have pointed this out. And even Sarah Creighton in her co authored guidelines from the Middlesex team, still stick with this "male" line with 5aRD. (Though to be fair this does try to prevent feminising surgery during childhood so it should too, but what is missing is "do not masculinise", and that should be in there in my opinion.) And yes this takes discussion and involvement. But how would you feel if glassberg was calling the shots?

Glassberg is niether retired or dead and he claims to represent a wider consensus, which is evidenced by the AAP guidelines in the States. Which are really horrible and not open to negotiation like Sarah's guidelines are.

I think the strong feeling people have about the medical profession, when you read people like glassberg or the AAP guidelines are fully justified. The nutters are alive and kicking, and far from retirement. Even in Europe, There was a french surgeon not too long back sounding off like Glassberg. Involve good medics and discuss with them fine, I am all for that, but hey, it does not mean to say there are no Dr Crippens or Sir Lancelot Spratts still out there because there is.

And they do have to be confronted.

Hugs :grouphug0

Sophie.

Peter

09-17-04, 12:41 AM

Hi Miriam,

I apologize for assuming that you have generally been happy with past medical treatments, based upon the limited information that you posted on this site about past satisfaction with medical treatment.
I am not really the dinosaur that you think that I am. In recent weeks, I have received complaints from people who post on this forum that it is out of line for you to suggest that it is rude or inappropriate for interesex people to complain about the treatment they received from doctors in the past. Many people feel that it is acceptable behavior to complain about past medical treatments, or rather mistreatment as it is more commonly referred to. Heck, Dana does it all the time. But people not as forceful as Dana, also have a right to express negative feelings about doctors without being put down as acting in a rude or inappropriate manner. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that I have a pretty good sense of the balance of different opinions that help keep this forum interesting.
When I first read some of your posts, you were discussing planning for a street demonstration that would include the topic of intersex awareness. I found the posts really interesting. I have also learned from other posts that you have a vast knowledge of intersex topics and work hard on public education around intersex issues. You are probably one of the top intersex activists in the world today. So, when I see you complaining about me being rude, and the like, I think to myself, "Miriam is a really great person, why is she wasting her time on such petty complaints?"

Peter

miriam

09-17-04, 05:40 AM

Cut the crap, Peter. I know, the English language offers several more polite ways to say what I just said, but it isn’t easy to stay polite after reading your latest message. But I’ll try to stay as polite as possible.

In recent weeks, I have received complaints from people who post on this forum that it is out of line for you to suggest that it is rude or inappropriate for interesex people to complain about the treatment they received from doctors in the past.
After my vacation I started to post again on 7 September but until 9 September there was no serious discussion. My first contribution to the thread Genital surgery by gender is dated 15 September. Today it is 17 September. So it is unlikely that you received complaints in recent weeks (plural). And it is also unlikely that people who post here are afraid to share there thoughts with me.

But to me it is more important that you try to let me say things I never said. You suggest that I say it is rude for intersex people to complain about the treatment they received from doctors in the past. Where did I say that? I would appreciate it if you answer this question.

Many people feel that it is acceptable behavior to complain about past medical treatments, or rather mistreatment as it is more commonly referred to. Heck, Dana does it all the time. But people not as forceful as Dana, also have a right to express negative feelings about doctors without being being put down as acting in a rude or inappropriate manner. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that I have a pretty good sense of the balance of different opinions that help keep this forum interesting.
As said before, this discussion is not about complaining about past medical treatment. Complain as much as you want about any doctor who did you wrong. But projecting that anger on other people who happen to work as a medic, is unacceptable behaviour. The fact that you are a victim gives you the right to accuse the perpetrator. But it doesn’t give you the right to become a perpetrator yourself by attacking people who have nothing to do with you or with the doctor who treated you.

When I first read some of your posts, you were discussing planning for a street demonstration that would include the topic of intersex awareness. I found the posts really interesting. I have also learned from other posts that you have a vast knowledge of intersex topics and work hard on public education around intersex issues.
Hey, I can’t remember that I ever wanted to plan a street demonstration. That’s not exactly my kind of activism. Are you sure you are talking about me? I even did a quick check on all the 77 messages I posted before this one and I can see that what I said in this thread is consistent with what I wrote about surgery in other threads. Thank you for the compliment about my vast knowledge and the education, but you should realize that the knowledge and the experiences with the public education are the roots why I tell you that it is inappropriate to offend every human being working in the medical profession

You are probably one of the top intersex activists in the world today.
Thank you, thank you, thank you… this is just too much honour. In Europe I do what I can, but more than an intersex activist, I’m a fellow sufferer, a partner in misfortune. Please don’t forget that.

So, when I see you complaining about me being rude, and the like, I think to myself, "Miriam is a really great person, why is she wasting her time on such petty complaints?"
Simply because I can not and will not accept that the discussion with medical professionals will be blurred by invalid arguments. Blame whomever you have to blame, but give compliments to those people who are our friends.

Activism and learning to live with an intersex condition are two activities that are difficult to combine. If you combine those activities, there is a chance that the people who you are talking to will feel that you use your discussion partners as a replacement for a shrink. The greatest risk is that they will think/understand that you are talking about yourself instead of the group of intersex people you say you represent. As the chair of the Dutch AIS peer support group I and the other members of the board represent 120 people. Of course there is an official policy which is based on input we receive from members at the meetings. At those meetings there is also time to vent and rant about all my personal problems. But as soon as I say or write something outside our group, I stick to the official policy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with the official policy; it only requires that I sometimes have discussions like the one we have now.

Both from a personal point of view as from the official policy of the Dutch support group I don’t want to attack medical professionals who have done nothing wrong. And again: this doesn't mean we should not fight people like like Glassberg.

So... that’s why I spend so much time on it and I definitely don’t see that as wasting time.

Groeten, Miriam

PS. the use of the word petty in your last paragraph is just sooooo petty.

PPS, You can write to me whatever you want but if you don’t start to use valid arguments instead of fallacies and bellow-the-belt techniques, I will not reply. (hey, in a way this is an appeal to force fallacy. Click here (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php) if you want to read more about fallacies.

miriam

09-17-04, 09:06 AM

Peter,

May be it is better that you use a PM if you want to reply to my previous post. The discussion we now have leads to nothing and is not very interesting for other members or visitors of BLO.

Groeten, Miriam

Sophie338

09-17-04, 10:41 AM

Hello Miriam Hello Peter

:ARMS1:

The discussion we now have leads to nothing and is not very interesting for other members or visitors of BLO.

Well the entire thread has given me food for thought, about how we do approach the medical profession. while it has been heated, I think it has been a healthy debate. and has left me considering things that previously I didnt consider.

:grouphug0

Sophie

Dana Gold

09-17-04, 11:23 AM

Gee :redface: ....

I admit to having the reputation as the 'BLO Ranter' and I do it here and with others who would understand my emotionally-charged posts because this is what I feel a support group forum is for. To release pent-up feelings and share painful experiences, as others do likewise. I certainly don't do this in the company of medical professionals or out in the public, as I would get ignored, be thought crazy and ejected or arrested for disturbing the peace. And in my twenties , I participated in street activism, which I would be highly averse to doing now. In my interactions with the medical research people and potential medical students here at the University, I use a "kinder", more subtle approach, when I talk about intersex sex/gender altering treatments and the difficult lives of people who are "queer-bodies". I also like the University, as it represents to me a more open-minded and socially accepting environment, and I do not wish to "bite the hand that feeds me". Miriam is correct that we shouldn't rant at med people....Betsy has schooled me on this also. But I do believe that we should be able to rant here at BLO, and if med professionals do happen to "pass through", maybe then they can see the reality of the real feelings of many intersexed people's lives. This is our forum and as Sophie pointed out , such dialogue amongst us may not always be polite, or kindly worded, but some understanding, I believe, does come out of it. If nothing else, we have vented the "pressure cooker" of our feelings and thoughts here and not in a place where it would be inappropriate to do so. In other words, we are in a "safe environment" here, and should not have to cover up anything, especially feelings....it is not healthy to "contain" ourselves.....any psychologist would agree and in therapy patients are encouraged to express themselves so they can see things not otherwise realized. Perhaps, BLO is somewhat of a therapy for many here, and as such it is a very valuable and positive place. Heck, I have not been , myself, able to find anywhere else, (psychologist, religious group, doctors (huh?) that such commonality of experiences exist that enable us to vent, share, listen, learn, and heal . As in nature, the healing process results in an itchy, ugly scab, that we sometimes continue to scratch at, until a scar forms to remind us of the "injury"....and , of course, humans tend to show off their scars and talk about the why...this applies to psychological trauma as well........

Anyway, I do tend to get quite vociferous because I feel strongly that the woes of the world go much further than what happens to intersex, which is part of the "symptoms" of a sick society....are there good people out there in our world?......., of course..... and I am ever thankful for their existence, just this morning I prayed in the spirit of gratitude that I have been able to find friendly and humane people in my environment.

I'll probably still rant at times, though.....I guess it's part of my nature to be bitchy and complain....I don't get hysterical anymore and I just now remembered....I haven't had any anxiety/panic attacks for some time now.

Anyway, enough....if any would like to rant/vent, I will be willing to listen.....but , please be forewarned....I may tend to sympathize and start ranting, venting , too. I am, alas a very emotional person....who said Germans were cool and aloof!?.....This ole' gal certainly ain't!!

:wave1: :wave1: :wave1: :wave1:....ohhhhh, I love it when the smilies are sooo "together"

Betsy

09-17-04, 11:46 AM

Dana is correct in her summation that these forums are a place to vent, rant, yell, whatever. These forums are not for medical people even though I know for sure that some do wander in occassionally. If I was concerned that they might be offended by what they read, then these forums would be password protected and hidden from view.

Frankly, I'm not overly concerned that some may be offended. Those that may be overly offended basically can go f*** themselves because it is probably the same ones who think they are doing us a favor when they cut us. Those who are on board with the intersex movement usually are because they are aware of the hurt that has been caused, and it is the words and voices of intersex people who got them there as supporters. They are not going to be offended.

That is one of the key reasons these forums are open and in the clear--so that the hurt and anger is obvious. When it is out there, it cannot be denied by the likes of Glassberg or Khoury in Toronto who once stated that most intersex advocates/activists were a small minority who probably had bad surgery (I guess as opposed to his handiwork).

I would however prefer that personal digs/flames be avoided. If you are going to use a personal reference as Peter did, please cite it with a linkback to the original post, discussion, etc.

Betsy

Betsy

09-17-04, 11:58 AM

PS...

Miriam is spot-on with her point about speaking to medical doctors. But that is an entirely different arena than the forums here. This is a safe place, standing in front of 500 medical professionals is not---been there, done that, and will do it again soon. Heck, it is the same thing for getting up in front of any group of people. You have to be able to employ a good amount of disconnect between your own history and the task at hand of educating about intersex issues as a whole. If you don't it becomes just another freak show like the bearded lady in the circus sideshow but with different lighting.

Betsy

Jules

09-18-04, 12:39 PM

I think that doctors are in it for far more than the money. I think that there are many psychosocial dynamics involved in the practice of intersex medicine. I feel that seeking medical control over a person's sex and gender is a strong case of "playing God". Dare I say it -- I think that doctors treating intersex conditions find the practice of intersex surgery sexy.
Peter

Well. I've had some computer problems, but I'm back. This post upsets

me. :angry_smi

Intersex surgery is sexy? You have got to be kidding me. Please help me

understand what method of step by step deductive reasoning did you use to

reach that conclusion? Do you have evidence to back it up? It doesn't even

make sense to me. It's hard enough to know our own motivations-- much

less to "know" the motivations of other people (even doctors)! Maybe this

sentence belongs in the “speak your mind thread." Do you think doctors get

a kind of masturbatory pleasure in choosing a sex for intersex babies? We

may feel like doctors feel this way-- but really, we have never even ASKED

any doctors how they FEEL about what they are doing. Do you think this

gives doctors sexual bragging rights, like men bragging about how many girls

they have slept with? How do you come to this conclusion? I don’t know how

to even respond to that. Accusing doctors of having specific feelings about

what they do to intersex children is not much different from psychiatrists

telling US what we feel about being intersex. Neither group has much

evidence to support these claims. If I was a judge or a doctor I would

dismiss this "sexy" comment as an unsubstantiated accusation. This sort of

projection undermines the crebility of legitimate objections to doctors'

surgeries.

You talk about doctors playing GOD? Would you even know the difference

between necessary genital surgery, like the kind I had OR MIRAIM HAD, and

unnessary surgery like the kind that you and Betsy had? (yes, it IS important

to distinguish -- on a case by case basis-- between unneeded surgery and

needed surgery) What if you came down with a cancer? or type two

diabetes? Do doctors not play "GOD" when they operate to save someones

life or percribe drugs to save lives? I'm sure you would have NO problem with

a doctor playing "GOD" with you to remove cancer in your kidney, because

after all you can't fight genital surgery if your dead, right? What about

smoking, or alcohol drinking or taking drugs? Are you not playing GOD with

your own life when you put a foreign substance in your body? Please don't

come back with "Well that is my choice, genital surgery was not" I'm not

talking about choice in this reply I'm responding to your comment

about "Playing God". Of course doctors play "GOD"! I play GOD with my own

body even when I take aspirin for a headache. STOP bashing Doctors as a

group! They save far more lives than they destroy! If you want to bash the

doctor who operated on you, fine, start a diary, or get a therapist and bash

away. This site is supposed to be a safe place to vent anger, so vent, but

please, stop trying to put ideas in other members heads about doctors

thinking their genital operations are sexy. I let a lot of ranting pass without

comment, but your comments could be hurtfull to new members reading them

because people feed off the energy of each other's anger and rants. Then,

instead of helping each other, we actually just raise each other's blood

pressure.

Now, let me tell what "support" might mean. It seems to

me that many of the threads here concern the fortunes of a hypothetical

population, some of whom have not even been born yet. Much of the heat

of our arguments bears a resemblance to anti-abortion crusaders who are

always working for "the unborn" generation (or, in our case, the "not-yet-

been-operated-on). But, how does stopping all infant genital surgery, even

on people who need it, help any of us with our current psychological

and physiological problems?

I don't dismiss Betsy's argumements because surgery was unnessary on her. I

am willing to believe that surgery on her was done for the thinnest possible

excuses. But, please do not dissmiss the importance of my arguments,

beacuse I NEEDED EARLY SURGERY! TO NOT OPERATE ON ME AS A INFANT

WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE CHILD ABUSE IN ITSELF. But Betsy's argument AND

my argument are both valid. The point is that having one answer for

ALL babies (all surgery or no surgery) is a poor choice. I think that Miriam is

arguing for surgical decisions to be made on a case by case basis-- with

physiological needs determining surgery while sociological needs (like "will my

child fit in? will he or she ger beat up in school? etc") resulting in the decision

NOT to operate, but perhaps to provide family counseling to help the child

develop a positive sense of self. This seems like a sensible idea. After all --

doctors do not choose automatically to operate on cleft palate or hairlip

babies-- those operations are made on a case by case basis. Miriam is, I

think, arguing for the same principle to be applied to us.

Now, when are we going to devote any time on this site to ANY other

INTERSEX ISSUES such as heart disease, osteoporosis, prostate cancer,

weight gain and loss associated with hormone (or lack of) treatment,

neurological problems, learning disabilities and so on and so on and so on.

Wheather we like it or not intersex people manifest a wide array of

symptoms such as neurological problems, learning disabilities,

alcoholism, and or substance abuse, because of socialization problems

including problems with intimate relationships and relationships with family

members.

Can we not broaden the subject range to issues that matter to the living

intersex population? While we are all still alive, we STILL have needs for

support -- btw, has anyone thought about the noticeable youthfulness of

most intersex people in appearance? What do we really know about the ways

in which intersex people age????? Seriously, who are our "spiritual"

grandparents and elders and how are they doing? How do we age?

Sophie338

09-18-04, 02:44 PM

Hello Jules :smile:

Nice to see you.

The impression I gained from Peter's comments involving the word "sexy" was more to do with the way some surgeons go into specialisations and gain a sort of godlike prestige from that. A good example would be the science I am involved with. A lot of people criticised the Human Genome Project claiming that it "Cinderella science" or "sexy". And to be honest I do know of two genetecists on that project, one a nobel prize winner, who have vastly inflated egos. I didnt quite see Peter describing the motivations in terms of sexually fetishising the act of conducting surgery on the surgeons part. I more gained the impression that they had some kick from the godlike satus they gained from what they were doing. And that applies to many areas of science. But especially medicine. I have seen the real thing and certain parododies of that "God Complex" and, yes there are still many like Glassberg who display this. It is a very unfortunate fact of life.

On the timing of surgery, I respect you a lot for being honest and saying that for you it was beneficial. Considering the hostility many, myself very much included have toward infant surgeries (I will admit to my hostility I have very big issues with it).

The lesson I am learning from this thread is that one persons meat is another person's poison (to use an old english phrase). For me the motivation behind the surgery is as much an issue as the surgery in itself. I have been told on numerous occasions when I was a child that there would have been "social conseuences" had I been left to grow as I was. These I presume were "I would get bullied" (I got bullies anyway, hit back and then blamed bullies... I dont get bullied these days). For me this motivation did not seem to be justified. I would rather have just been bullied, than be bullied with my kidneys packing in and kids hitting my distended bladder. When I read people like Glassberg, quite frankly I feel nothing but anger.

My anger is at the medical profession who went by arbitrary definitions and practices, and who conducted surgery on me that was at the time neither discussed or questioned. I was unable to give consent, and yet it wrecked my life. I cannot re-write history, I can only try to be involved with groups like Bodies Like Ours and the AISSG with the hope of preventing similar pain being inflicted on another child.

I dont know your situation well enough to form an opinion what you are saying. (About surgery), I wont dissagree with you just for the sake of it. but one question does cross my mind, if there were someone else on this forum that had a similar condition to yours and similar surgery undertaken, and they felt angry about it. What would you say to them on that?

I am not trying to confront you with this question :smile: I just want to understand some questions in my mind right now a little better

Big Hug

:grouphug0

Sophie

Peter

09-18-04, 07:22 PM

OK, for the last day, I have held back from immediately replying in a manner that might not be constructive. I would like to clarify that when I speak of my outrage with doctors, it is only with doctors who perform unnecessary and unwanted surgeries on intersex children. (I mean "unwanted" as lacking the full informed consent of the intersex person.) I have said many times, that if the surgery is medically necessary, or is performed with the consent of the intersex person, I have no immediate ethical problem with the treatment. (It may be a bad procedure on other medical grounds.) So, it is unfair to say that I am attacking all doctors (medics). I have an Ear, Nose, and Throat specialist who I see, and love dearly for the constructive medical help he has given me. At the last SF Human Rights Commission intersex task force meeting, one of the HRC staff had just received a letter from a doctor who used to perform intersex surgeries, but has given up the practice. I respect that doctor for having an open mind and being willing to change. Just today (Sunday edition), in the The New York Times, Dr. Bruce Buckingham, associate professor of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford University said about infant intersex surgeries "Everyone's rethinking this." What I find interesting about the article is that the position that unwanted and unnecessary infant genital surgeries should not be routinely performed is increasingly being seen as part of the ethical mainstream. I think that many people associated with this forum, and elsewhere in the intersex movement, have made valuable contributions to increasing public awareness and education around intersex issues.

I think that the position that I should only criticize the doctors who individually treated me is simply wrong. That would be like saying that in a slave society, that a slave can only criticize his or her immediate master, but not the institution of slavery and the larger society in which it exists. I am openly criticizing the institution of medically unnecessary surgery performed on intersex children without our informed consent. I think that it is morally wrong to ask me to limit my criticism of non-consenual medical treatments aimed at normalizing intersex children. Further, my criticism institutionally extends to include the lack of sound research on long term treatment outcomes, lack of peer support and counseling, and a general lack of public education that all perpetuate a culture of shame and secrecy. (I think that we all generally agree on these topics.)

OK, maybe I should not have used the word "sexy", as I meant to use the word in the sense of a personal "fascination" or "interest" that goes beyond immediate pragmatic ends. This has obviously been misunderstood to mean that I am saying that doctors get sexually excited by practising genital surgery. Last night, I read Alice Dreger's new book "One of Us: Conjoined Twins And The Future of Normal". She certainly does not hold back in discussing psychosocial dynamics associated with "normalizing" medical procedures done on people with "different" bodies. It's a great read. I figure, that if the psychosocial line of argument is good enough for the Harvard University Press, it good enough for this forum - (although her book also goes far beyond immediate psychosocial concerns.) Her chapter covering the ethics of "sacrifice" surgeries where one conscious conjoined twin is killed to "save" the other is a real eye opener. It's a brilliant and couragous study of "the future of normal". I recommend that everyone read it.

p.s. Thanks Sophie! I just read your post.

Peter

RGMCjim

09-19-04, 12:14 AM

I went to a seminar taught by a skinny, 5' tall, 50yr old lesbian who worked for the local State Penetentiary teaching non-violence to dangerous, incarcerated men. I was so in awe I listened very carefully and her words have changed the ways I interact with others forever.

The subject of the seminar was how we can reduce conflict, misunderstanding and violence in our daily lives. She told us that at the root of the majority of conflicts is our assumption that we know the motives, purposes and driving forces of other people. She maintained that we know nothing about other's motives and that we should always keep in mind that we are wrong everytime we think we do know other's motives. She said that the first step toward resolving conflict is to let go of the idea that we know what drives people better than they do, or without even asking them.

I don't think there is much point in trying to solve or de-code the Psychology, motives, or intentions of our persecutors. Even if we could achieve such knowledge I can't think of a way we could use it to help them or us. There are plenty of people who do all the wrong things for all the right reasons and vice versa. Very good people are capable of doing heinous attrocities while thinking they are helping.

I think it is a better use of our limited energy and resources to educate EVERYONE we can, (including doctors, judges, politicians, butchers-bakers-candlestick makers) that we and our children have been and are being hurt by those who have pre-empted our self-determination, (no matter what their motives are). They have subjugated our freedom to choose what is or isn't done to our bodies and lives and that we don't want, (and won't allow) that to continue. It doesn't matter what their intention was, they need to know what REALLY happened and that it wasn't good. It is for us to be the ones who define ourselves if we need defining. Not them. We will no longer stand outside humanity with them as gatekeepers deciding whether or not we will be allowed entrance to the realm of human. It's just plain wrong for any person to do that to another.

If we agree that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the persuit of happiness then we don't really need to justify our desire to live in our own bodies, make own choices, find our own truth and live our own lives. We are already justified because we are human - it's just plain right for us to assert these things. Likewise it makes no difference how much denial, rationalization or excuse others use to deny us our entitlement as human beings. It is just plain wrong for them to do that. We don't need to know their motives, their issues with gender/sexuality, their issues with power/control, or anything else. Their issues with us are their problem and getting over them is their responcibility. We will serve our own best interests by making that clear to them and ourselves by reclaiming our autonomy, and accepting nothing less.

I think we waste time, resources and energy villifying the Doctors and Judges who persecute us. They, like us, have been fed a diet of lies about sex, gender, sexuality, orientation and intimacy that cripple them too. When we work toward our own liberation we actually help to liberate them as well. If we take the chip off our shoulders we can make allies of Doctors, Judges, and champions of the social concerns of minorities. I've met plenty and brought plenty on board.

If we allow ourselves to get quagmired by our own self-pity we are not jailed by others. We become our own jailers.

Jim Costich

Sophie338

09-19-04, 07:27 AM

Hello Jim :smile:

She told us that at the root of the majority of conflicts is our assumption that we know the motives, purposes and driving forces of other people. She maintained that we know nothing about other's motives and that we should always keep in mind that we are wrong everytime we think we do know other's motives. She said that the first step toward resolving conflict is to let go of the idea that we know what drives people better than they do, or without even asking them.

I think what you may find is that a lot of people in the Glassberg camp find it hard to undertand or rather just don't our motives for objecting to things like surgery, secresy and shame. By this I mean that this should be a two way process. Which Miriam advocates. But when the medical professionals in some cases refuse to listen (As with people like Glassberg) We are stuck in an awkward situation.

While I have gained a reputation for being anti medic. I will never oppose communitacion or more constructive dialogue.

I don't think there is much point in trying to solve or de-code the Psychology, motives, or intentions of our persecutors. Even if we could achieve such knowledge I can't think of a way we could use it to help them or us. There are plenty of people who do all the wrong things for all the right reasons and vice versa. V