Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genital Alteration and Intersex: a Critical Analysis

  • Sociocultural Issues and Epidemiology (J Abdulcadir and C Johnson-Agbakwu, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to survey current discussions of genital alteration on intersex infants, and children. Intersex is a term used to describe an individual with a less common combination of genetic, hormonal, gonadal, and genital features that are used in assigning sex at birth. This language is frequently replaced by disorders of sexual development (DSD).

Recent Findings

This article critically examines medical publications, legal and governmental documents, and statements by intersex activists regarding medically unnecessary genital surgery, seeking to place a wide variety of literature in conversation and attending to social and ethical issues related to DSD treatment.

Summary

It is vital that there be a robust patient-centered research agenda on non-surgical and surgical outcomes for DSD treatment. We offer open-ended questions inspired by this literature review, with the hope and intention that future treatment of DSDs will continue to be informed by critical engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The committee advocated for a change in nomenclature, stating that the term “intersex” (among others) is controversial, confusing to practitioners and parents, and potentially experienced as pejorative by patients. Instead, they proposed the term “disorders of sexual development” (DSD) to describe “congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical” [4]. While some—namely practitioners and parents—have responded positively to this change in nomenclature, others—namely intersex activists—are troubled by its pathologizing connotation. From their perspective, to say that someone has a disorder of sexual development is to say that their body is somehow wrong instead of merely different. Opinions about language are certainly still nonhomogeneous, with some patients self-identifying as intersex and others describing DSD as a medical condition they have rather than a salient part of their identity. Given this dichotomy, for the remainder of this article, we use the term DSD to mean “differences of sexual development,” as has been recommended by the Accord Alliance [5•]. This language gestures towards the wide-degree of sexual variance among all bodies and suggests that DSD is simply a less common set of genotypic and/or phenotypic traits, rather than inherently abnormal or pathological. While less frequently used, “variations in sex development (VSD)” is another term that moves away from the language of “disorder” towards a recognition and affirmation of bodily diversity [6].

  2. While this review focuses specifically on genital surgeries, we note that recent literature also contends with establishing best practices for gonadectomy in patients with certain DSDs. In the past, practitioners tended to uniformly approach the presence of certain gonads in intersex children with pronounced concern, citing increased risks of cancer. Gonadectomy in infancy and early childhood was almost always performed as a precautionary measure. That said, recent studies suggests that the gonadal tumor risk varies based on the specific DSD a patient has and that risk of malignancy is not high in infants and young children. Laparoscopic techniques have also allowed for less invasive monitoring of the gonads. Research consequently suggests that gonadectomy can be delayed until a child is older and can participate in decision-making processes in many instances [11, 12].

  3. Literature was reviewed from a wide-range of sources including clinical medical journals, publications on bioethics and medical humanities, governmental and legal policy, sociological research, and publications released by intersex activists and advocacy organizations. Of about 50 sources examined, the most pertinent were included in this brief commentary. Sources were published primarily in the USA and Western Europe, with the addition of several articles published in the Middle East, Eastern Asia, and Southeastern Asia.

  4. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, in the USA, the medical community has largely accepted that “older adolescents deserve to be treated as autonomous medical decision-makers… [and that] children after ages 12 or 13 who appear mature have or ought to have the right to consent or to withhold consent to general medical treatment”—what is referred to as the “mature minor rule” or “mature minor doctrine.” That said, most states do not have mature minor statutes that function as complete, legal exceptions from parental consent policies [15]. Thus, unlike in cases where a child is legally emancipated from their parent(s)/guardian(s) and is therefore an autonomous decision-maker, the mature minor rule does not allow a minor patient to make medical decisions that contradict parental consent [15, 16]. Thus, in the case of DSD treatment, the recommendation that medically unnecessary procedures be delayed until the minor patient can provide informed consent is not currently a legal mandate but instead functions as an ethical demand. Legal scholars are investigating whether a precedent exists within current case law that could be applied in cases of DSD to more resolutely buttress minor patient autonomy in decision-making processes. One case being investigated is Bellotti v. Baird, in which “the Court determined that notwithstanding the limitations on minors’ rights, the right to privacy with respect to abortion can outweigh the interests of the state and the parent” [14•].

  5. Again, Diamond and Garland assert that there is a lack of research on the outcomes of delayed surgery because of the still largely unchallenged norm of performing such procedures during infancy and childhood [9•].

  6. In this context, we draw from intersex advocacy work in defining genital cosmetic surgery as any number of procedures that are medically unnecessary (e.g., are neither life-sustaining nor crucial for the patient’s physical health) [2, 3, 5•, 7, 9•, 17, 20, 21, 27••]. When the primary purpose of these procedures is to “normalize” the appearance of genitalia (i.e., clitorectomy; phalloplasty) or to alter the function of genitalia (i.e., vaginoplasty; hypospadias repair) for non-life sustaining purposes, they categorically fall within the scope of cosmetic procedures. For example, the reduction of a child’s clitoris to produce a more “typically female” appearance is an esthetic surgery. Hypospadias repair to treat urine obstruction is medically necessary. On the other hand, hypospadias repair to allow a child to urinate standing up is not medically necessary. Instead, this alteration of function is esthetic insofar as it is rooted in social norms of males urinating while standing rather than physical health needs. Some argue that the aforementioned procedures are therapeutic rather than cosmetic, largely insofar as they will relieve the patient of psychological distress in the future [10, 17]. The issue with this reasoning is that it assumes that all patients will have psychological distress associated with their genital appearance and/or function. This is not always the case and can only be ascertained once the patient is of an age where they can be actively involved in decision-making processes [2, 3. 9•].

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Trans Student Equality Resources. LGBTQ+ definitions. Trans Student Equality Resources. 2017, http://www.transstudent.org/definitions. Accessed 17 December 17 2017.

  2. Preves SE. Intersex and identity: the contested self. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davis G. Contesting intersex: the dubious diagnosis. New York: NYU Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lee P, Houk C. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Pediatrics. 2006;118(2):e488–500. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Accord Alliance. Clinical guidelines for the management of disorders of sex development in childhood. Accord Alliance. 2008. http://www.accordalliance.org/dsdguidelines/ht/docs/clinical/index.html. Accessed 28 April 2015. This document lays out recommended guidelines for treatment of DSD in response to the 2006 Consensus Statement.

  6. Diamond M, Beh H. Variations of sex development instead of disorders of sex development. Arch Dis Child. 2006;96

  7. Dreger, A. Shifting the paradigm of intersex treatment. Intersex Society of North America 2008, http://www.isna.org/compare. Accessed 17 Dec 2017.

  8. Khadilkar VV, Phanse-Gupte S. Issues in the diagnosis and management of disorders of sexual development. Indian J Pediatr. 2014;81(1):66–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdrc.21147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. • Diamond M, Garland J. Evidence regarding cosmetic and medically unnecessary surgery on infants. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;10:2–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.10.021. This article highlights current issues being debated in light of the Annecy meeting.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mouriquand P, Caldamone A, Malone P, Frank JD, Hoebeke P. The ESPU/SPU standpoint on the surgical management of disorders of sex development (DSD). J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(1):8–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.10.023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abaci A, Çatlı G, Berberoğlu M. Gonadal malignancy risk and prophylactic gonadectomy in disorders of sexual development. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2015;28(9–10):1019–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpem-2014-0522.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Burgmeier C, Leriche C. Laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of disorders of sexual development. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(9):730–3. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gomez-Lobo V, Oelschlager AMA. Disorders of sexual development in adult women. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5):1162–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001672.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. • Lee PA, Houk CP. Commentary to ‘evidence regarding cosmetic and medically unnecessary surgery on infants.’. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;10:7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.11.006. This article highlights current issues being debated in light of the Annecy meeting.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coleman DL, Rosoff PM. The legal authority of mature minors to consent to general medical treatment. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):786–93. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Committee for Emergency Medical Services for Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics 2011:128:427–433. Doi: 10.15.42/peds.2011-1166.

  17. Puluka, A. Parent versus state: protecting intersex children from cosmetic genital surgery. Mich St L Rev 2015:2095–2141. https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/lr/vol2015/iss5/7.

  18. Zhu D, Hu L, Wan X, Li H, You Q, Gao L, et al. Quality of life evaluation in juveniles with disorders of sexual development. Pediatr Surg Int. 2012;28(11):1119–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-012-3182-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Oelschlager AMA, Muscarella M, Gomez-Lobo V. Transition to adult care in persons with disorders of sexual development. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(4):845–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001034.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Méndez, JE. Report of the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/HRC/22/53). United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council 2013, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session22/A.HRC.22.53_English.pdf.

  21. Bruyn, P. Promoting the human rights of and eliminating discrimination against intersex people (Doc. 14404). Committee on Equality and Discrimination of Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe. 2017, http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-DocDetails-EN.asp?fileid=24027&lang=2.

  22. Malta. Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and Sex Characteristics Act (CAP. 540). Maltese Parliament. 2015, http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=12312&l=1.

  23. Southern Poverty Law Center. M.C. v. Aaronson Southern Poverty Law Center www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/mc-v-aaronson. Accessed on 17 Dec 2017.

  24. •• Davis G. Normalizing intersex: the transformative power of stories. Narrat Inq Bioeth. 2015;5:87–9. https://doi.org/10.1353/nib.2015.0055. This introduction and journal issue provides resources for on-going conversations about DSD treatment.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boyse K, Gardner M, Marvicsin DJ, Sandberg DE. ‘It was an overwhelming thing’: parents’ needs after infant diagnosis with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. J Pediatr Nurs. 2014;29(5):436–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2014.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Özbey H, Etker S. Disorders of sexual development in a cultural context. Arab J Urol. 2013;11(1):33–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2012.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. •• Long, L., Wall, S.S.M., Pagonis, P. A statement from intersex people of color on the 20th anniversary of intersex awareness day. Pidgeon Pagonis. http://www.pidgeonismy.name/blog/2016/10/26/a-statement-from-intersex-people-of-color-on-the-20th-anniversary-of-intersex-awareness-day. Accesed 17 December 2017. This statement provides a set of values practiced by several notable intersex activists.

Download references

Funding

This material is based in part on Ferrara’s work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1746060.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Arizona, 925 N Tyndall Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Mel Ferrara

  2. Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Arizona, Douglass Building 200-W, 1100 E University Blvd, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Monica J. Casper

Authors
  1. Mel Ferrara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monica J. Casper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mel Ferrara.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sociocultural Issues and Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferrara, M., Casper, M.J. Genital Alteration and Intersex: a Critical Analysis. Curr Sex Health Rep 10, 1–6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-018-0142-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-018-0142-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation