From: dmac@julia.math.ucla.edu (saki)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Circumcision
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 18:33:07 GMT

In article <930125221902.12b4@VAX.CSUN.EDU> VBCSC03L@VAX.CSUN.EDU (snopes) writes:
>>I Recall reading about a medical mishap back in the late 70s (I think).
>>A doctor slipped up during a circumcision of a bouncing baby boy, and
>>recommended to the parents that he should have a sex change operation
>>and be rasied as a girl. Seems that the kid's fledgling manhood was
>>beyond repair.
>
>  Alright, somebody enlighten me:  Why is it "better" to be a woman with no
>  breasts, ovaries, or vagina (and still with such undesirable male
>  characteristics as facial hair, a deep voice, and testicles), than to be
>  a man with a damaged penis?  Wouldn't it be more sensible just to resort
>  to some sort of prosthetic and/or reconstructive surgery than to undergo
>  a complete sex change?

This point occurred to me, too, and I'm unable to explain it. In fact,
any reading of standard medical texts specializing in urological or
reproductive complications would suggest that the story of the doctor,
quoted above, is suspect. There are a plethora of odd, even frightening
malformations that may be present upon the birth of a child; minor ones
like hypospadias (where the urethral opening appears mid-shaft or in the
scrotum), epispadias (urethra external), and major syndromes where the
penis is located behind the scrotum, or microphallus, which is self-
descriptive.

Surgical decisions always take into account the genetic/chromosomal
factor, according to these texts---i.e., what gender the child actually
is, rather than appears to be. In cases where chromosomal count reflects
a different gender from external examination, determination to perform
surgery to conform to that gender is often advised. This can occur
when physical defects require surgery, as well, as long as this is in
keeping with genetic gender. From what I've read, it's not a decision
that's made lightly.

The idea that a baby whose penis is damaged by cicumcision would be
required to undergo a procedure to turn him into a girl strikes me
as bizarre. Genetically he'd still be male; hormonally he's male.
Advances in plastic and reconstructive surgery should allow some
sort of repair, I would imagine, without the need to completely
change gender via surgery, hormone therapy, and psychological
support (I'm projecting that all this would be necessary---maybe
counselling for the hapless parents as well!) 

If the story of the botched circumcision is true (newspaper accounts,
as we all know, aren't necessarily indicators of veracity), then I'd
not only question the doctor's use of an experimental technique, as
it was reported, but I'd also question his resolution to change
the child's gender---such conclusions suggest to me that this
physician ought not be practicing medicine.

Perhaps some medical students have come across case studies of
similar occurrences? Or perhaps there's a rational explaination
for this medical debacle? In its absence, I'm inclinced to dismiss
this story as an urban legend or as medical incompetence of a very
high order.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban