Betsy
06-30-04, 04:07 AM
(excuse any bad spelling/grammer---I just got home from a 400 mile drive without any stops)
So, I'm literally just back from the Women in Medicine conference I attended and presented at on Monday. The Women in Medicine conference is basically the dyke side of GLMA, The Gay and Lesbian Medical Assn. The intersex session was a double session and I presented with Dr. Kate O'Hanlan. Kate is a gynecological oncologist in Northern Californinia and a great allie for us. We had a truly great, dynamic workshop that flowed perfectly even though we had never presented together previously and had only met once before (at the SF HRC hearing) Kate did the medical side of "what is intersex" and spoke out very strongly against unnecessary, cosmetic surgeries. I did the human side of it. I think I changed a few opinions these past couple of days.
I got great feedback from the docs in attendance throughout the rest of my stay in P-Town and was made to feel so very welcome there despite the fact that I was probably the only non-medical person that did a medically focused CME eligible workshop. This afternoon I spent some time at the home of one of the couples there along with a bunch of other docs (mostly surgeons and pediatricians) One of them (a surgeon) is writing a book on why you should never trust surgeons and that most surgery of all types is unnecessary. In fact, she asked if I would write a chapter about intersex genital mutilation for it.
I also received two tentative invites to do Grand Rounds at hospitals in the US about surgery. Some of the women there apparently have quite a bit of influence. It's likely I'll also be invited back next year to do it again.
Beyond the wonderful opportunity to spend time in social settings with people who can make a difference and really wanted to hear what I had to say, I also got quite a bit of insight on how IS conditions are defined by the docs that are seeing us. It wasn't unlike the discussions we have here about what is IS and what is not. Hypospadius for instance was discussed and those docs in favor of ending all cosmetic surgeries or those done with a social justification (i.e.---so the boy can stand to pee or have functional penetrative intercourse for the sake of reproduction) felt it is an IS condition. Those who went on the side of caution with the point that there are varying degrees said only some hypospadic males have an IS condition. The commonality was the agreement that surgery that is being done for social reasons alone (and most IS surgeries are done simply for social reasons) were IS related, with some more-so than others. (This is exclusive of the most obvious intesex conditions) It also offered insight into the politics of defining IS---in a nutshell, you can put out on the table all the science you want, but at the end of day, surgery being done on children for social reasons and without an underlying medical necessity is wrong and needs to end.
Now, I'm going to go backwards in time about three years to a lunch date in a very greasy pizza joint in downtown Newark, NJ with none other than Bill Reiner. Now, unless my memory was faulty, he used examples of CE in the realm of intersex. I'm not sure if he was into data gathering at the time on his study recently published with Gearhart but he was onto the reclaimation of the male gender identity by children who had CE surgery and sex reassignment surgery to go along with it. In fact, (and I don't know if I am at liberty to share the exact details here) he also shared what changed his mind about IS surgeries and why he went from ped urol. to ped psychologist. It was a pretty amazing lunch date. In fact, given the discussion, I'm really tempted to write or call him and ask if he truly believes that CE is not an IS condition.
So, with this knowledge, fast forward to this past spring and the publishing of his article with John Gearhart. I was a bit surprised to see that Gearhart was his co-author because I thought (and a disclaimer to avoid being sued if I am incorrect) that Gearhart was the author of the now famous quote, "It's easier to dig a hole than it is to build a pole". If I am wrong on that sourcing, than apologies are in order to Dr. Gearhart. If I am correct, it's a good indication that people do change their outlook, particularly on this issue.
I think that became obvious when Ian Aaaronson said recently, "Doctors should stand in shame" regarding the lack of follow-up studies and yet appear self-justified in continuing these brutal surgeries. He is someone in the past who has implied that the world would come crashing down if surgery wasn't done.
So, all this said, wouldn't it be better if we just deal with the issues at hand---ending unnecessary surgeries on the genitals of children who cannot give consent regardless of who calls a bird blue? Dealing with the issues of shame and secrecy? Helping to ease isolation for those who thought they are the only ones out there with a queer body? Speaking out about our own stories? You know what I mean---we have a fantastic opportunity to change medical history here and it's happening. Sometimes the docs need to be yelled at. Most listen to it. I'm going to say it again, Nat, yell all you want at them for what they did to you and since we curse in our day to day life and don't always mind our manners (nor our p's and q's) you don't need to do that here either.
Betsy
So, I'm literally just back from the Women in Medicine conference I attended and presented at on Monday. The Women in Medicine conference is basically the dyke side of GLMA, The Gay and Lesbian Medical Assn. The intersex session was a double session and I presented with Dr. Kate O'Hanlan. Kate is a gynecological oncologist in Northern Californinia and a great allie for us. We had a truly great, dynamic workshop that flowed perfectly even though we had never presented together previously and had only met once before (at the SF HRC hearing) Kate did the medical side of "what is intersex" and spoke out very strongly against unnecessary, cosmetic surgeries. I did the human side of it. I think I changed a few opinions these past couple of days.
I got great feedback from the docs in attendance throughout the rest of my stay in P-Town and was made to feel so very welcome there despite the fact that I was probably the only non-medical person that did a medically focused CME eligible workshop. This afternoon I spent some time at the home of one of the couples there along with a bunch of other docs (mostly surgeons and pediatricians) One of them (a surgeon) is writing a book on why you should never trust surgeons and that most surgery of all types is unnecessary. In fact, she asked if I would write a chapter about intersex genital mutilation for it.
I also received two tentative invites to do Grand Rounds at hospitals in the US about surgery. Some of the women there apparently have quite a bit of influence. It's likely I'll also be invited back next year to do it again.
Beyond the wonderful opportunity to spend time in social settings with people who can make a difference and really wanted to hear what I had to say, I also got quite a bit of insight on how IS conditions are defined by the docs that are seeing us. It wasn't unlike the discussions we have here about what is IS and what is not. Hypospadius for instance was discussed and those docs in favor of ending all cosmetic surgeries or those done with a social justification (i.e.---so the boy can stand to pee or have functional penetrative intercourse for the sake of reproduction) felt it is an IS condition. Those who went on the side of caution with the point that there are varying degrees said only some hypospadic males have an IS condition. The commonality was the agreement that surgery that is being done for social reasons alone (and most IS surgeries are done simply for social reasons) were IS related, with some more-so than others. (This is exclusive of the most obvious intesex conditions) It also offered insight into the politics of defining IS---in a nutshell, you can put out on the table all the science you want, but at the end of day, surgery being done on children for social reasons and without an underlying medical necessity is wrong and needs to end.
Now, I'm going to go backwards in time about three years to a lunch date in a very greasy pizza joint in downtown Newark, NJ with none other than Bill Reiner. Now, unless my memory was faulty, he used examples of CE in the realm of intersex. I'm not sure if he was into data gathering at the time on his study recently published with Gearhart but he was onto the reclaimation of the male gender identity by children who had CE surgery and sex reassignment surgery to go along with it. In fact, (and I don't know if I am at liberty to share the exact details here) he also shared what changed his mind about IS surgeries and why he went from ped urol. to ped psychologist. It was a pretty amazing lunch date. In fact, given the discussion, I'm really tempted to write or call him and ask if he truly believes that CE is not an IS condition.
So, with this knowledge, fast forward to this past spring and the publishing of his article with John Gearhart. I was a bit surprised to see that Gearhart was his co-author because I thought (and a disclaimer to avoid being sued if I am incorrect) that Gearhart was the author of the now famous quote, "It's easier to dig a hole than it is to build a pole". If I am wrong on that sourcing, than apologies are in order to Dr. Gearhart. If I am correct, it's a good indication that people do change their outlook, particularly on this issue.
I think that became obvious when Ian Aaaronson said recently, "Doctors should stand in shame" regarding the lack of follow-up studies and yet appear self-justified in continuing these brutal surgeries. He is someone in the past who has implied that the world would come crashing down if surgery wasn't done.
So, all this said, wouldn't it be better if we just deal with the issues at hand---ending unnecessary surgeries on the genitals of children who cannot give consent regardless of who calls a bird blue? Dealing with the issues of shame and secrecy? Helping to ease isolation for those who thought they are the only ones out there with a queer body? Speaking out about our own stories? You know what I mean---we have a fantastic opportunity to change medical history here and it's happening. Sometimes the docs need to be yelled at. Most listen to it. I'm going to say it again, Nat, yell all you want at them for what they did to you and since we curse in our day to day life and don't always mind our manners (nor our p's and q's) you don't need to do that here either.
Betsy