Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Slate: This Doctor Does What to 6-Year-Old Girls' Clitorises?


Recommended Posts

This Doctor Does What to 6-Year-Old Girls' Clitorises?

Is it a medical scandal?

By Hanna Rosin

June 24, 2010

The story has all the makings of a gynecological horror flick: "Cornell Surgeon Used Vibrator To Stimulate 6-Year-Olds," gasped the headline in Jezebel. Dan Savage declared himself so angry that "I hardly know where to start." (On our own XX Factor blog, my colleague Rachael Larimore called it "appalling.") The villain in this medical horror story is one aptly named Dr. Dix Poppas, a pediatric urologist at Cornell University who specializes in genital reconstruction. Outrage was so universal that a new Facebook page called "End Genital Mutilation at Cornell University" is racking up thousands of members a day, and Poppas has begun receiving death threats.

Is it true? Is there some rogue doctor surgically slicing the clitorises of little girls and then testing them with vibrators? Not exactly. The scandal concerns a medical paper Poppas and two colleagues wrote three years ago in the Journal of Urology describing a method Poppas was using to test clitoral sensitivity after surgery. (A paper discussing that research is here.) Two bioethicists, Alice Dreger and Ellen Feder, dredged up the paper last week and published an article in Bioethics Forum comparing Poppas' work to the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Project and saying a quorum of their colleagues had declared it "outrageous." Dreger and Feder also raised many valid ethical questions about Poppas' research, but when the words "clitoris," "6-year-old," and "vibrator" appear in the same essay, the blogosphere translates that into "Pervert Surgeon Wields Knife, Seeks Thrills."

The patients in question are girls with a condition known as CAH, or congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which affects about one in 5,000 girls. Genetically, they are girls, but a hormone imbalance causes their clitoris to be enlarged, sometimes only slightly more than average, and sometimes so much that at birth they are mistaken for boys—particularly if they have a fused labia that looks like a scrotum. For many years the standard treatment for this has been what the outraged masses are now calling "genital mutilation" and what doctors call clitoroplasty, or cosmetic reduction of the size of the clitoris, usually done on infants before they turn 1. Forty years ago, doctors would opt for a clitoridectomy, or the complete removal of the organ. Now, Poppas and others opt for "nerve sparing" surgery to try to preserve the sensations.

So where does the vibrator come in? In the last few years, many critics—Dreger, Feder, and Dan Savage among them—have begun to question whether the surgery is necessary at all, nerve sparing or otherwise. Nerve sparing does not always work. As Dreger points out, Poppas' surgery preserves the glans (tip) of the clitoris but cuts out the shaft, although many women masturbate using the shaft. But their larger objection is that the surgery is purely cosmetic and thus unnecessary. "If he really cared about maximizing these girls' function," writes Dreger on her blog, "he would not be doing surgery on their healthy clitorises."

Poppas devised a crude test to answer these critics and measure the effectiveness of his nerve-sparing surgery.


The patients Poppas tested could never benefit from the test. If Poppas found no sensation, he would have no way to reverse the operation. In the small world of children born with abnormal genitals, there is a long history of horrendous postoperative testing, both psychological and physiological. (See the awful stories chronicled by John Colapinto in As Nature Made Him.) Poppas, who did not return calls, likely knew that he would have a hard time getting approval for his experiment. But that does not make him a child molester. He was trying to answer a legitimate scientific question about a set of his patients.

To his critics, however, these details don't matter. Savage calls this a conspiracy of "out and out homophobia." He claims the medical establishment pushes these operations because girls with bigger clitorises are more likely to be lesbian. This claim is a stretch; girls with CAH are only slightly more likely to be lesbians or tomboyish when they are young. The vast majority are heterosexual and comfortable as girls. Gender norms have shifted pretty drastically in the 40 years that this operation has been performed, and still more than 95 percent of parents choose it for their children. Why? Because much as Savage might like it to be, the world is not yet a place where most little girls can have a clitoris that looks like a penis and feel entirely at ease. And few parents would want to use their daughter to test that proposition.

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am adamantly against FGM, I understand performing a "nerve sparing" clitoroplasty on a female who has a genetic hormone imbalance that causes overgrowth of the clitoris.

I wonder how bad these overgrowths were in these girls. I would hate to be a parent faced with these types of decisions, or any type of decision regarding genetic issues that affect my child's sexual organs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this once when I was "watching t.v." online at a "reputable website" many years ago.

To be vague, let's just say that there were two women on this t.v. show who decided to be friendly with each other, and one of them decided it was time for dessert. Anyway, after a minute or so of eating dessert...BAM! It was indescribable the way this thing popped out. It was obviously a chick, but this was the first time I had ever seen this particular condition. Scared the bejeezus out of me.:ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, that's a tough one. If the article in the OP is accurate, I'm not sure if I can think of a better option. I mean, the only two alternatives seem to be performing these surgeries without any sort of knowledge about what can be removed without eliminating sensation for the rest of a girl's life, or simply banning any form of this procedure. Neither sounds better, at least in extreme cases. I can't imagine what it would be like for a young girl - and perhaps even worse, a teenage girl - to grow up with something as confusing and socially difficult as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patients in question are girls with a condition known as CAH, or congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which affects about one in 5,000 girls.

This is incorrect. The incidence is about 1:15000.

I personally find the type of surgery revolting. It's not life threatening, has nothing to do with function, and has everything to do with cosmetics. So you take a chance at damaging the pudendal nerve? So this person will have no sensation at all in the external genetalia? For what. There is no health risk at all with this condition, at least in terms of the external genetalia.

Now intervention to help these people make cortisol, or hormone replacement, that's another story, and can be argued. But surgery? No reason in my mind. You have no idea of the long term effects, and I think it's absolutely ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...