Sexual Scientists
Question
Medical Treatment of Hermaphroditism
by Bo Laurent
note: article written 11-95
The fate of persons born with ambiguous genitals (also called
hermaphrodites, or intersexuals) was the focus of debate when sexual scientists
from around the world met in San Francisco earlier this month. Before modern
medical understanding of endocrinology and advances in surgical techniques,
such individuals made their way in the world as best they could. For the past
forty years, however, medical technologies have been widely used to force such
unruly bodies to conform more closely to male or female shapes. This policy has
been implemented almost entirely without public scrutiny, in hospitals
throughout the US and other industrialized countries.
In a symposium titled "Genitals, Identity, and Gender," held at
the annual convention of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, sex
researcher Dr. Milton Diamond, of the University of Hawaii Medical School, and
psychologist Dr. Suzanne Kessler, of State University of New York at Purchase,
found a receptive audience for their criticism of medical treatment of
hermaphrodites. Dr. Heino Meyer-Bahlburg, a member of the team which treats
hermaphrodites at Columbia University's Presbyterian Hospital in New York, was
on hand to offer the clinician's point of view.
Man without a penis-a woman?
Diamond had dramatic news for the assembled sexologists; he presented a
follow-up on the famous case of the twin boys. One of these identical twins had
lost his penis at age 7 months in a circumcision accident, in 1963. On medical
advice, the boy was reassigned as a girl, plastic surgery used to make his
genitals appear female, and female hormones administered during adolescence to
complete the metamorphosis. The change of sex was facilitated and monitored at
Johns Hopkins Hospital, a leading center for medical treatment of
hermaphrodites. In 1973 and 1975, Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins, a leading
expert in pediatric psychoendocrinology and developmental psychology, reported
the outcome as favorable. In the ensuing twenty years, the case of the
penectomized twin has taken on immense significance; it is cited in numerous
elementary psychology, human sexuality, and sociology texts. Most importantly,
the case influenced medical thinking about treatment of hermaphroditic infants.
Medical texts now recommend that boys born with a penis that is "too
small" be reassigned as girls, just as the twin was.Surgeons remove their
penises and testes and construct a vagina, and a pediatric endocrinologist
administers hormones to facilitate female puberty.
But in fact, according to Diamond's report, the penectomized twin
steadfastly refused to grow into a woman, and now lives as an adult man. She
didn't feel or act like a girl. She often discarded the estrogen pills which
were prescribed at age 12, and she refused additional surgery to deepen the
vagina which surgeons had constructed at 17 months of age, despite Hopkins
staff's repeated attempts to convince her that life would be impossible without
it. "You're not gonna find anybody unless you have vaginal surgery and
live as a female," the twin recalls a Hopkins physician telling her.
The twin was not convinced. "These people gotta be pretty shallow, if
that's the only thing I've got going for me. That the only reason people get
married is because of what's between their legs. If that's all they think of
me, I've gotta be a complete loser," the fourteen year old thought.
By age 14, the twin was able to convince her local physicians, if not the
specialists at Hopkins, to help her to live as a male once again. He received a
mastectomy and a phalloplasty, he began a regimen of male hormones, and he
adamantly refused to ever return to Hopkins.
Although the Hopkins staff were aware of the twin's resistance to medical
intervention intended to make a woman of him, for nearly two decades they have
dismissed questions about the outcome of this important case because the twin
was "lost to followup." In discussion following Diamond's
presentation, sexologists expressed shock and dismay that they had been allowed
continued to teach and to write that the penectomized twin had been
successfully transformed into a woman, for twenty years after the care
providers involved knew that the experiment had been a tragic failure. Vern
Bullough, the distinguished historian, stood to denounce the Hopkins team and
John Money as having acted unethically in the matter.
Who has the power to name?
"Medical standards allow penises as short as 2.5 cm to mark maleness, and
clitorises as large as 0.9 cm to mark femaleness. Infant genital appendages
between 0.9 cm and 2.5 cm are unacceptable." The audience laughed, but
Kessler had accurately summarized mainstream medical practice in
"managing" infants and children with unusual genitals. At most
hospitals, surgeons will remove clitoral tissue from a child born with such
in-between genitals, to produce more acceptable female genitals. In others,
surgeons transfer tissue from other parts of the body to try to build a larger
penis. No one has ever performed studies to determine the long term effect on
sexual function of these genital surgeries. Kessler noted that physicians
and parents refer to such genitals as "deformed" before surgery and
"corrected" after surgery. In contrast, many of those who have been
subjected to surgery label their own genitals as having been "intact"
before surgery, and "mutilated" afterward. These individuals are
beginning to come together to form an intersex advocacy movement, most notably
in the form of the San Francisco-based Intersex Society of North America (ISNA,
PO Box 31791 SF CA 94131, ).
Kessler presented a poll of college students' feelings about
"corrective" genital surgery. Women were asked to imagine that they
had been born with a larger than normal clitoris, and that physicians had
recommended surgery to reduce its size. One fourth of the women indicated that
they would not have wanted the clitoral reduction surgery under any
circumstance; one quarter would have wanted surgery only if the clitoris caused
health problems, and the remaining 1/4 would have wanted the size of their
clitoris reduced only if the surgery would not have entailed any reduction in
pleasurable sensitivity.
Men were asked to imagine that they had been born with a smaller than normal
penis, and physicians had recommended reassigning the boy as female and
surgically altering the genitals to appear female. All but one man indicated
that they would not have wanted surgery under any circumstance. They seem to be
saying that they believe they could live as men in our culture, even with tiny
penises.
Finally, Kessler presented communications from parents of girls whose
clitorises had been deemed "too large" by physicians, and surgically
reduced. In some cases, the parents had noticed nothing unusual about their
daughters' clitoral size; physicians had to teach the parents that the clitoris
was unusual enough to warrant genital surgery.
A clinician's point of view
Meyer-Bahlburg defended the practice of genital surgery on children. Without
surgery, he said, they are likely to be rejected by their parents, and teased
by other children. He offered the example of one infant whose father was so
disturbed by her large clitoris that he attempted to rip it off with his
fingers, resulting in a trip to the emergency room. An ISNA representative
stood to denounce the father's action as child abuse, which cannot justify
surgery on the infant. Medical intervention has been predicated on the
notion that quality of life is possible only for individuals who conform to
male or female sex and gender. But in recent years, the possibility of a third
gender, of non-conformance, has come to the fore. There are several threads to
this discourse. Anthropologists and ethnographers have identified third gender
categories in many cultures, such as the Berdache in Native America, the Hijra
in India, the Xanith in Oman, and many others. Non-conforming gender roles are
also in evidence in the growing transgender movement, which has rebelled
against medical policy which offered services to transsexuals only if they
conformed adequately to mainstream heterosexual male or female roles.
But most important, Meyer-Bahlburg acknowledged, is the growing intersex
advocacy movement. This movement, represented most forcefully by ISNA, is
beginning to speak out against the harm of genital surgery and of secrecy and
taboo surrounding intersexuality. "I believe that this new third gender
philosophy is going to have a beneficial and quite profound effect on medical
intersex management, but that it will take quite a while," said
Meyer-Bahlburg. In response to a question from the audience, he indicated that
he would begin to advocate less surgery for "minor" cases of genital
abnormalities.
Bo Laurent, a doctoral student at the Institute for
Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, is a consultant to the
Intersex Society of North America.
top
home
~ about me
~ intersexuality
faq ~ intersexuality vocabulary
~ articles
real people ~
bulletin board
~
|