Hypospadias: Intersexuality and Gender Politics

If you are looking around for information about intersexuality, one of the first things you're likely to read is that "most intersex children are assigned female at birth."  This is in fact false.  

In the U.S. today, according to the CDC, one in 125 children assigned male at birth is surgically modified to fit that binary sex status.  The percentage of children assigned female at birth who are genitally altered in infancy to feminize their genitalia seems to be lower.  Exactly how much lower is very difficult to determine, since nobody is gathering the data we'd need to have.  The reason we know the 1-in-125 figure is because these children assigned male are all given the same diagnosis: hypospadias.  Hypospadias is the diagnosis given to most children born with intermediate genitalia who have external testes.  Rates of hypospadias have been increasing, and the CDC is collecting data due to concern about that.

The reason people continue to say that few intersex individuals are assigned male is that doctors term hypospadias a "penile malformation" rather than an "intersex condition."

I've written about this before in this post.  I noted there, "medical diagnostic categories are not logical, despite our ideology that they should be so. The majority of individuals born with intermediate sexual anatomies [and surgically assigned male] are not given an intersex diagnosis. I believe that what underlies this is gender ideology. And that gender ideology is this: masculinity is fragile, especially when it comes to what a man has in his pants. To live as a man with an inadequate penis is seen as intolerable. To have one's status as a 'real man' challenged is viewed as psychologically crushing. Thus, doctors feel, if they were to categorize someone as intersex and then assign them male, they would be acting cruelly.  Women, on the other hand, are perceived as more gender-flexible. After all, it's reasoned, a woman isn't shamed by wearing pants or taking on a power career. [Doctors view] female-assigned people as more comfortable with androgyny and as better at dealing with emotional challenges."  Because of assumptions about fragile masculinity and flexible femininity, doctors feel more at ease assigning children they designate as intersex female. Those they regularly surgically alter to conform to binary male sex norms, they wish not to label intersex.

I was contacted by some people after writing that prior post challenging my assertion that hypospadias is an intersex condition.  They countered that it was simply a minor displacement of the male urethra.  So I wanted to make my case more clearly.

Let's start with some illustrations.

All children start out in the womb with the same set of genitals, an intersex form.  As a rule I will not post photos of children's actual genitalia because it is exploitative, but in this case, I feel a medical image of the standard genital form of a fetus isn't going to cause additional emotional trauma to any particular child, so here's a photo:

Our society expects this intermediate genital form to differentiate before birth into two "opposite" binary sex forms (penis and testes, or vulva), but in fact, babies are born with genitals on a full spectrum between these two socially idealized poles.  Let's look at how medical professionals illustrate this sex spectrum.

When a child is diagnosed as having some form of XX, CAH, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the sex spectrum is described by the "Prader scale," and the "stages" of the "condition" evaluated using this chart:

When a child with XY chromomes is diagnosed as having a form of AIS--partial or complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome--the sex spectrum is termed the "Quigley scale," and is illustrated like this:

  
You can see that both of these illustrations include 6 forms, although they number them in reverse order and with different numerals.  What they both show is that between a genital form considered typically female and one considered typically male, there is a common spectrum of intermediate forms.

This is equally true for children who are diagnosed as having hypospadias.   But medical illustrations of hypospadias are very different.  They do not picture the genitals as intermediate in form.

Instead of picturing the same range of in-between forms shown in the Prader and Quigley scales, medical illustrations of hypospadias variations show something odd: a carefully illustrated "normal penis" with a series of dots superimposed upon it to indicate the level at which the urinal meatus/ vaginal opening are located.  

 
The penis is always illustrated as erect, and often with a lot of illustrative detail to emphasize the "reality" of this imaginary ideal penis existing instead of the intermediate genitals actually present in intersex individuals who have external testes.

Let us be clear here.  A child diagnosed with hypospadias of an "advanced degree," be it termed perineal or posterior or scrotal, will have an intermediate phalloclitoral form with a substantial invagination, not a large, erect phallus with a dot at the bottom.  They'll look more like the Prader 2 or Quigley 4.  I'd illustrate such a child's genitals more like this:

Why would medical illustrations of intermediate genitalia be representationally accurate in the case of intersex children diagnosed under the rubrics of AIS or CAH, but inaccurate if highly detailed in the case of intersex children diagnosed under the rubric of hypospadias?  Only gender ideology can explain this.  Children diagnosed with CAH and AIS are routinely assigned female.  But children with hypospadias are surgically "corrected" to male, and to undermine the "adequacy" of a male's phallus is treated as untenable.  Parents (and doctors!) must be reassured by looking at the erect, large, ideal penises drawn in the hypospadias illustrations that the genitally intermediate flesh of the child they see is illusory, and that an excellent penis will soon be revealed by the scalpel.  

So: medical illustrations of hypospadias, and the medical assertion that it is not really an intersex condition, relate to our ideologies of masculinity.

The differences in medical approaches to intersex children routinely assigned female and routinely assigned male extend further than illustrations and terminology.  They also determine all the tests and evaluations the child will receive.  If an intersex child lacks external testes--the determining characteristic of a hypospadias diagnosis--that child is routinely subjected to a battery of tests: genotyping, endocrine screening, medical imaging scans.  This is not the case when an intersex child has external testes.  In fact, even suggesting that a child with intermediate genitalia but palpable testes receive any sex-related tests at all is considered "controversial" by doctors.  Since hypospadias is defined as a penile malformation that is not an intersex condition, why would anyone wish to test sex chromosomes, hormone levels, or internal reproductive structures?  It's presented as an unacceptable waste of time and money, in an affronted tone.  

In fact, individuals born with hypospadias do commonly have other sex-variant characteristics.  An example is the presence of what is termed a substantial "prostatic utricle," a uterine structure that may be small or full-sized that connects to the vaginas present in these children at birth.  While the "pseudovaginae" are removed and closed during infant genital "normalizing" surgery, doctors do not test for the presence of a uterine structure.  People diagnosed with hypospadias and their doctors generally only become aware that there is a utricle present if something goes wrong, such as the development of uterine cancer or painful cysts--and then usually by accident during imaging scans for some other presumed cause of the patients' symptoms. 

I want to note that many intersex people assigned female at birth complain of all the invasive tests and screenings and procedures to which they are subjected in childhood, so the fact that intersex children with hypospadias diagnoses avoid these is not necessarily a bad thing.  But not even thinking of checking for a uterine structure in someone born with hypospadias who presents to a doctor with pelvic pain could have very negative health consequences. 

It is clear is that intersex children diagnosed with hypospadias are treated very differently than children with other intersex diagnoses.  Rather than being treated as bizarre and interesting medical cases that require a lot of medical study and intervention, they are treated as normal boys with a little urethral displacement issue.

The thing that children diagnosed with hypospadias have in common with other intersex children is that they are subjected to genital normalizing surgery that can have many negative consequences.  Medical texts list as unwanted consequences of hypospadias "repair" surgery urethral fistulae, strictures, and diverticulae, recurrent urinary infections, "excess skin," hair-bearing skin, persistent chordee, erectile difficulties, erectile persistence, chronic inflammation, and a condition called balanitis xerotica obliterans.  Textbooks are oddly silent on the issues of loss of genital sensation that are very common, and the fact that children born with genitals in the middle of the sex spectrum are particularly likely not to identify with the sex they are surgically assigned at birth.

Some children who are diagnosed with hypospadias have genitals that are quite close to the binary male ideal in our culture.  For them, medical interventions may be fairly minor, and the side effects may be modest.  They are very likely to see themselves as typical males, and are probably unlikely to wish to be identified as intersex because they share our society's pattern of fragile masculinity.  I am empathetic with their position.  But we should be able to support the gender identities and dignity of people born with hypospadias who identify as men without resorting to inaccurate medical illustrations and illogical medical taxonomies.  

Hypospadias is an intersex condition.  The surgeries we perform on unconsenting intersex children without their consent have lifelong consequences.  These can be profoundly negative for children whose genitals are dramatically altered--something that intersex advocates decry all the time.  But we should also question why we routinely risk the loss of sexual sensation in the glans of the male-assigned child whose urethra is in a slightly atypical place.

All of us born intersex deserve to be recognized as such, and to be granted autonomy to make our own decisions about what "normalizing" surgical alterations we wish, if any.  Putting an end to the routine genital reconstructive surgery performed on the many thousands of children diagnosed with hypospadias each year should be considered an important point of intersex advocacy.

Intersex Genitalia Illustrated and Explained

There is a lot of variation in how the genitalia develop from person to person in all of us. Nature provides us with a wide spectrum of forms, onto which our society imposes two absolute categories of male and female. In my last post, I described how all people start out with the same genitals in the womb, and how the phalloclitoris differentiates during development. In this post I will discuss the range of natural genital forms, explaining how they develop from the shared embryonic phalloclitoral structures.

I will illustrate this post with simple diagrams. I know that there is a lot of interest in what intersex genitals actually look like—most of the people who find this blog do so by searching for these words. I've discussed elsewhere why I will not post medical photographs of intersex people's genitalia—these often picture children photographed without their consent, and I will not participate in their exploitation. But I do support people's impulse to know more about the range of human forms. I want to help lift the veil of medically-enforced secrecy that makes our bodies invisible, so that interesex bodies can be demystified and accepted. So: diagrams it is.

I will start by reviewing the structures of our shared original genital form, and showing how they develop in what are deemed “normal” males and females.

The Embryo

We all begin life with genitals that have four basic external elements. At the top is the part numbered 1 and colored pink on this illustration: the sensitive end of the phalloclitoris, which can differentiate into the head of the penis or clitoris. Below it is structure 2, drawn in orange, which is capable of differentiation into either a phallic shaft, or clitoral body and labia minora. In the center is structure 3, drawn in green: an inset membrane that can widen or can seal as the fetus develops. It will form the urethra, and the vagina, if any. And at the outside is the fourth part, colored blue: the labioscrotal swellings, which can develop into labia majora or a scrotum.

“Normal Differentiation”

You can see how the four sectors of the embryonic genitalia differentiate in the diagrams of “typical” male and female genitals pictured here (illustrated without the foreskin or "hood"). Click on any illustration to see it larger. Notice that the pink phalloclitoral head points downward in typical female development and upright in typical male development. The orange body of the phalloclitoris separates and is buried beneath the labia in females, while it closes around the urethra and forms the penile shaft in males.

Sex variance occurs in many forms, but they are not random. Intersex conditions are produced by regular patterns of variation in development of one or more of the four parts of the embryonic genitalia. Let us consider a series of intersex conditions to see how these variations arise, and how they are framed by doctors.

“Aphallia”

Aphallia the term given by doctors to a form of sex variance produced when the first two sections of the embryonic genitala do not develop. While this is equally likely to occur in individuals with ovaries as those with testes, it is only generally commented upon medically when the individual has testicles and XY chromosomes. This illustrates how Western medicine is permeated by a strong gender bias. Having a large, erectile penis is considered a necessity for males, and its absence a tragedy of the highest order, to be addressed by somber medical articles. Having a clitoris capable of sensation and erection, however, is given little attention—so little that its congenital absence is treated as worthy of nothing more than a footnote.

The gendered beliefs that permeate Western medicine are further illustrated by the treatment plan for infants with testes who have aphallia. American doctors typically give these children sex reassignment surgery to remove the testes and create a vagina, it being apparently impossible to tolerate the idea of children being raised as boys without a penis. Without this surgical castration, the children could grow up to be fertile, but their fertility is medically sacrificed without their consent. What is particularly noteworthy is that doctors speak of the sex-reassigned patient with aphallia as growing up to have “normal female sexual function.” “Normal,” for a female, is thus medically defined as being capable of receiving a penis in a vagina, not having sexual pleasure.

“Microphallus”

Some people have large feet and some people have small ones; some have large noses and while others' are petite. When the phalloclitoris is quite small in a person with external testes and a male genital configuration, doctors say the individual has “microphallus.” If the testes are deemed "inadequate," doctors often advise sex assignment to female in infancy as they do in the case of aphallia, because life as a man with tiny sex organs is deemed tragic. Again, the individual's fertility is sacrificed without consent. If the testes are considered normal the child may be treated instead with injections of testosterone, in effect triggering puberty in toddlerhood and leading to moderate enlargement of the clitorophallus (along with other premature pubertal effects such as the development of adult patterns of body hair).

Rarely considered as options by doctors are simply allowing the child to live life as a male with a small penis, or to decide for zirself what course of action to take. Whether the sacrifice of some or all sexual sensation to have genitals that appear female is better than living life as a person with testes and a very small phallus is not a question that science can give a single “correct answer.” It is a subjective and highly personal decision, and will be driven most strongly by the gender identity the child grows to develop. I and other intersex advocates believe that only the intersex person can make such a lifechanging decision, and that for doctors to force their choice upon an unconsenting child is both arrogant and cruel.

“Clitoromegaly”

When a child with typically-male-configured genitals has a large phalloclitoris, the doctors make admiring jokes with the parents. But when the child is female, having a large phalloclitoris is deemed a “birth defect.” Despite the lack of any functional harm from having a large clitoris, doctors perform surgery to “reduce” it to the “acceptable” female range. This often seriously impairs sexual sensation. Although today doctors like to brag that they preserve sexual sensation because they have abandoned the older surgical treatment of “clitoral amputation,” usually some sensation is lost in “clitoral reduction,” and sometimes the phalloclitoris loses all sensation, even though some of the tissue is permitted to remain. It is especially ironic that the removal of part of the clitoris in traditional female circumcision practices is renounced as “female genital mutilation” by Western doctors, yet they perform a similar procedure in cases of “clitoromegaly” without compunction.

“Chordee”

The head of the phalloclitoris bends down in typical “female” configuration. When it does so in a person assigned male, it is termed “simple chordee.” In some individuals, the only atypical characteristic is the folded-down head of the phallus, which is of typical penile size. Doctors present this status as a “malformation of unknown cause,” rather than as a typically-female shape of the phalloclitoris in a male, because they are averse to terming any condition in a child assigned male “intersex.” But chordee is not a random alternative shaping of the penis, as if the penile head might have been equally likely to spontaneously bend in an S-shape. Chordee arises when Sector 1 of the embryonic tissue develops in the “female” configuration, while the rest of the genital development is typically male. Doctors usually suggest surgical “correction” of the phalloclitoral bend, citing locker-room teasing and a purported challenge to fertility. Such surgery presents a serious risk to sexual sensation in the penile head. Furthermore, fertility is not impaired by having a bent or curved penis—the production of sperm is unaltered. Penetrating some partners may be more difficult, but there are many ways to engage in both sexual interaction and fertilization other than via penetrative sex, and only the possessor of the bent penis can decide whether it makes sense to risk the sacrifice of sensation in the phalloclitoral head to make it easier to engage in penetrative sex with partners who prefer a narrow penis. (Some partners may find the phallus with chordee to be more sexually stimulating than a typical penis.)

In other individuals with chordee, the phalloclitoris is of intermediate size. It appears as an intermediary form evenly balanced between the male and female manifestations of the phalloclitoris. Often the individual also has a shallow vagina (discussed below under “hypospadias”).

Whether individuals assigned female at birth may have phalloclitoral heads that do not bend down like a typical clitoris but conform instead to the linear shape typical of males is not discussed in Western medical literature, with its obsession with penises and general disinterest in clitori. I consider it extremely likely that this unnamed counterpart to chordee does occur.

“Diphallia”

Section 2 of the embryonic genitalia is generally expected to fuse into a single penile shaft in male development, or to spread apart to form the two clitoral crura around the labia majora in female development. If the genitals devleop along male lines but the two sides do not fuse, the individual is born with two separate phalloclitori, side by side, each associated with one testis and having only one corpus cavernosum. Doctors remove one of the phalli (the one deemed smaller, no surprise there), though as in clitoromegaly there seems to be no functional danger involved in having two clitorophalli. This gential configuration can be associated with actual functional problems like an imperforate anus, obviously a true surgical emergency, but constructing an anus has nothing to do with removing half of the phalloclitoris. Doctors do not deem diphallia an intersex condition—the off-the-cuff reading is that the child is “doubly male”--but in fact the clitorophallus has developed in a manner intermediate between male and female norms.

A rarer bodily form than diphallia is phalloclitoral duplication, in which the embryo begins to twin in the genital region but ceases there—similar to what happens in the case of conjoined twins or people born with three legs. The individual is born with two penises or clitori, which may be located side-by-side or one above the other.

“Hypospadias”

Physical statuses in which a child develops external testes while Sections 2 and 3 of the phalloclitoris develop atypically are grouped together under the medical term “hypospadias.” Segment 3 of the embryonic genitalia forms the urethra and vagina, if any. In the normative male configuration, there is a urethral opening at the tip of phalloclitoris, and no vaginal opening. In individuals with hypospadias, the urethral opening is closer to the typically female location, and there may be some vaginal tissue. Individuals born with hypospadias in the U.S. today are almost always assigned male, and doctors rarely call them intersex. This is an ideological choice rather than one driven by anatomical logic. The medical belief seems to be that if a child has external testes and the clitorophallus can be surgically reconstructed along penile lines, then the child should be assigned male and no question ever raised in the parents' minds about the child having an intersex status. Doctors believe being seen as less than “fully male” is untenable for a man.

The degree of difference between typical male morphology and the genital arrangement of individuals with hypospadias varies widely. In many, it is simply a displacement of the urinary meatus from the very tip of the penis, as shown in the first illustration above, so that the urinary orifice is located lower on the phallic head, which is of ordinary penile size. Doctors “correct” this in childhood, claiming that having a “displaced” urinary meatus is unacceptable, as it will lead to teasing, and ostensibly problems with urinating in a standing position and fertility. Loss of sensation in the head of the penis, fistulas, and problems with recurrent bladder infections are deemed a better outcome by doctors than perhaps needing to sit down to pee—though in adulthood, many who have had this surgery complain that the side effects outweigh any benefits in their lives. The idea that fertility is impaired by having semen emitted from a position slightly lower down on the penis is laughable.

Hypospadias is measured by doctors in degrees. The greater the degree, the more the phalloclitoris assumes a vaginal configuration. The urinary outlet takes the shape of a small vaginal slit if located further from the head of the phalloclitoris, becoming larger if located further down the shaft, as in the second illustration above. If the urethral opening is located at the base of the phalloclitoris, the condition is termed “perineal hypospadias.” In people born with this configuration, the genitalia appear intermediate between the female norm and the male, with a vagina located in front of or between the labioscrota. Testes are located in the labioscrotum, with surface skin that can appear more close to typical labia majora or to scrotal skin. The clitorophallus is often intermediate in size and the head may bend down in the typical clitoral configuration called chordee. While children with “perineal hypospadias with chordee” have genitalia that look closer to the female norm than the male, they still may not be classified as “officially” intersex by American doctors, and surgery that closes their vaginas, dissects the clitorophallus from the perineum, and repositions the urethra to the head of the clitorophallus is termed a “repair” rather than sex assignment surgery. Such extensive surgery is painful, life-altering, and usually leads to loss of sensation. Furthermore, a substantial number of people born with this intermediate configuration grow up to identify as female, despite their infant surgical sex assignment to male, and bitterly resent having been given surgery that removed their vaginal tissue while forming their phalloclitori into the sensation-impaired semblance of a penis.

Rarely mentioned by doctors in articles discussing hypospadias is that it can be accompanied by intermediate internal sex structures, particularly a large “prostatic utricle”. (The embryonic structure that typically develops into a uterus in more female bodies forms a small “utricle” in the center of the prostate in bodies that are typically male.) In intersex bodies, this may exist as a small or average sized uterine structure within or aside a prostate—the greater the degree of the hypospadias, the more likely there is a utricle, and the larger it is likely to be. It fascinates me that the fact that people with hypospadias often have a uterine structure, evident in any literature search on the prostatic utricle, is rarely mentioned in medical descriptions of hypospadias, while much rarer associations between intersex conditions and cancer are often mentioned in articles on other intersex conditions. I believe it is not mentioned because discussing a uterine structure would undermine the medical framing of children with hypospadias as “boys with a penile malformation” rather than as intersex children.

"Vaginal Agenesis"

In some individuals, external genitalia are formed which appear close to the female side of the spectrum, but Section 3 only creates a shallow vagina or smooth patch of lubricating skin. Internally, such children may have no gonads, or may have ovaries but no uterus, or may have ovaries and an atypical uterus. Individuals with vaginal agenesis are always called female rather than intersex by doctors, even when they have no gonads and will develop no secondary sexual characteristics (such as breasts or facial hair absence/presence) without taking hormone medications. Again, Western medical ideology seeks to define away intersexuality as much as possible.

There is a lot of attention given by doctors to the creation of a vagina for children with genitals that otherwise appear female to them. This is framed as necessary for “sexual functioning,” presuming that forms of sexual activity other than penetration of a vagina by a penis are “not really sex.” As is the case with many intersex bodies, surgeries are often performed which sacrifice the capacity for sexual sensation out of an ideology that this is necessary for “normal sex.”

“Female Pseudohermaphroditism”/ Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

In some intersex conditions, the four zones of the external genitalia develop so that they look typically male (with urethral opening at the tip of the penis, scrotum, and no vaginal opening) but the individual possesses a uterus and ovaries, and the scrotum is empty. The most common diagnosis in people with such a bodily form is congenital adrenal hyperplasia or CAH in XX individuals. While most any person on the street would say that having both a penis and a uterus is an intersex bodily form, doctors hem and haw, and say instead that the child, while intersex, is a “pseudohermaphrodite,” somehow really female. This is based on the move by doctors almost a century ago to define intersexuality out of existence by saying that only individuals with the very rare condition of having one ovary and one testis, or having intermediate ovotestes, are “true hermpahrodites.” An intersex person with testes was deemed “really male” and anyone with ovaries “really female” by the creation of the term “pseudohermaphrodite.”

At the time doctors came up with the idea of the “pseudohermaphrodite,” sex assignment surgery had not yet been developed. Today, however, doctors insist that babies with CAH should be surgically assigned female in infancy. The language of “female pseudohermphroditism” is used to sooth parents who are shocked at the idea of a doctor cutting off their baby's penis. Doctors tell them that it is not “really” a penis, but is “really a clitoris” that is malformed. The fact, of course, is that all babies have phalloclitori—and that their baby's is exactly like any other typical boy's penis. If doctors were consistent, they'd have to call all men's phalli “malformed clitori.”

In any case, doctors in the U.S. routinely perform what they term “clitoral reduction” on children with CAH—that is, removal of almost all of the phallus--and cut apart the scrotum to give it the form of labia majora. In pressing this surgical sex assignment plan, doctors present parents with an odd assessment of the risks and benefits of such a course of intervention. They gloss over the fact that cutting off most of the phallus seriously impacts adult sexual sensation. They tell parents that this must be done to avoid the catastrophe of adult menstruation through the phallus. (Note that they do not inform parents of children with perineal hypospadias that menstruation is a “danger,” or suggest that children with hypospadias be assigned female to avoid penile menstruation.) Doctors do not inform parents that an alternative would be hormone treatment to suppress menstruation, or that their children could grow up to identify as men and function sexually as males, albeit without semen production. (Some ejaculation could be possible, but it would not contain sperm.) Rather than warn parents that many children with CAH grow up not to identify as female and to despair over having been effectively castrated, they warn that the children “have a heightened risk of lesbianism,” which is an eye-goggling assertion that is both homophobic and ignores the issue of gender identity.

“Male Pseudohermaphroditism”/ Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

Children with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome or CAIS are the counterparts to XX CAH children. Their external genitalia take the typical female form, but internally they lack a uterus, and in the place where one would ordinarily find ovaries, they have internal testes. Because their bodies do not respond to testosterone, they grow up to develop very feminine secondary sexual characteristics at puberty, though they will never have menstrual periods. Despite their typically-female appearance, doctors call these individuals “male pseudohermaphrodites” because they have testes. However, in contrast to the treatment of children with CAH, doctors do not go on to say that they CAIS children have “malformed penises” that must be surgically altered to fit their “true sex.” Instead of urging genital reconstruction, they tell parents to raise their CAIS children as girls, warn parents that their internal testes could possibly present a risk of cancer, and tell them to have the testes removed.

Unlike children with CAH, who often regret their sex assignment surgeries, individuals with CAIS seem to usually accept having been assigned female at birth. This is probably because of the contrast in the intersex individuals' experiences. Children with CAH are assigned female at birth via traumatic, scarring surgeries that impair sexual sensation, and then must take testosterone-suppressing drugs for life, while those with CAIS may not find out about their condition until puberty, retain uninjured and unaltered genitalia, and take no hormone-suppressant drugs. Nevertheless, despite typically identifying as female, these individuals are termed “male pseudohermaphrodites” on all of their medical records, and must live with the consequences of being deemed medically male throughout their romantic and sexual lives.

Some children have Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or PAIS. They are born with a wide range of phalloclitoral forms, from looking quite close to the male iconic form, to forms like that illustrated under “perineal hypospadias with chordee,” to looking typically female. Most have an intermediate form and are given childhood sex assignment surgery to one dyadic norm or the other. As usual, such surgery is traumatic, scarring, does not result in genitalia of fully “normal” appearance, and puts sexual sensation at serious risk. This probably explains why a third to half of individuals with PAIS grow up not to live as the sex they were assigned, while 80% of individuals with CAIS identify as “fully female.”

Those Not Pictured

Many bodies vary from sex-dyadic assumptions in ways that are not visible externally, so that they are rarely diagnosed at birth, such as variations in the sex chromosomes. We are told that “men are XY and women are XX,” but there are XX men and XY women who are not visibly distinct in their bodily forms from those with typical chromosomes. There are many individuals with XXY chromosomes, termed Kleinfelter's syndrome, with a typical male genital configuration but small testes—about 1 in 500 of people raised male turn out to have this intersex karyotype. People often only discover they are XXY when undergoing tests due to infertility, or sometimes in cases where they develop substantial breasts (“gynecomastia”). Another fairly common genetic variation is to just have a single X chromosome with no second sex chromosome at all, which doctors term Turner Syndrome. Having only 45 chromosomes instead of the usual 46 is associated with a host of physical problems, and the fact that the individual's gonads never develop is treated as secondary to the many physical and mental challenges the individual faces.

Other intersex conditions exist on a more macro level than tiny chromosomes, but are internal and so may go undiagnosed for years or for an individual's entire life. Included among these, ironically, are the only conditions deemed to constitute “true hermaphroditism” under medical taxonomies: the presence of an intermediate ovotestis, or even more rarely, of an ovary and a testis in the same person. I'll write more about “true hermaphroditism” in a later post.

Also not pictured are the bodies of people with an atypical sex steroid balance between the feminizing hormones (estrogens, progesterone, etc.) and masculinizing hormones (testosterone and its byproducts). Everyone produces all of these hormones, and requires both types for fertility and physical health, but those with bodies on the female size of the spectrum typically produce more feminizing hormones, and those with bodies on the male side typically produce more masculinizing hormones. Variations in this balance lead people with typically-female genitals to have higher levels of body and facial hair, muscle mass, likelihood of balding, and libido, and people with typically-male genitals to develop breast tissue, more curvaceous hips, etc. These variations are not termed intersex by doctors, but there is no logical reason why they should not be. Their intersex character is denied because most adults with such conditions have normative gender identities that match their genitals but are challenged by their contrasting secondary sexual characteristics. They and doctors together strongly assert that their variations do not make them any less male or female. While I agree that no one's gender identity should be deemed undermined by their physical appearance, I believe it would help all sex and gender variant individuals if society and medicine would acknowledge the prevalence of physical sex variance while supporting individuals in their gender identity assertions. Some intersex activists disagree, wishing to limit the conditions that will make a person “count” as intersex, and patrolling the boundaries of the community to exclude others as “wannabes.” Personally, I find this cruel and counterproductive. A woman with a beard lives a life in which her sexvariance is very visible, and saying she can't be included in a community of those with sexvariant bodies because she has typically-female genitalia does not make sense to me.

Another category of hormone-related variance includes individuals who produce low levels of sex steroids and whose bodies do not change much at the usual age of puberty. Such individuals are almost always treated with sex steroid therapy, without presenting them with the option of living in their androgynous bodies medically unaltered.

Finally, let me note that this catalog of intermediate bodily forms is not exhaustive. In my understanding, anyone whose body varies from the iconic male or female dyadic norms is sex variant, cannot be wished out of the intersex rubric by tricks of medical terminology, and should not be excluded from intersex community by gatekeepers.

We need society, the medical field, and intersex communities themselves to acknowledge that nature provides humanity with a wide range of forms, so that all of our bodies can be recognized as valid. Unless there is an actual rare functional problem, our bodies should not be altered in infancy, and only those functional problems should be addressed. Our genitals should be altered only if we ourselves request it, to make ourselves comfortable in our own skin, not to make society comfortable by our medical erasure. Society must come again to embrace the diversity that is nature's gift to us.

The Phalloclitoris: Anatomy and Ideology

This is a diagram of our shared heritage--yours and mine. It is a drawing of the genitalia we all start out with in the womb.

The Western medical establishment is deeply invested in the ideology of sexual dyadism: the idea that there are two very different sexes with two very different sets of genitalia. When children are born with genitals that are intermediate between the two, it is called a "malformation" and treated as bizarre and in need of immediate "correction." My earlier posts explain how this causes great suffering for intersex people. What I want to write about today is how the language we use and the diagrams doctors draw to illustrate genitalia hide the similarities between everyone's genitals. I believe that if we use more accurate language and diagrams, not only will we all understand eachother's bodies better, but the treatment of intersex individuals will improve.

Everyday Understandings of Genitalia

In the U.S., we live in a society that believes in two "opposite" sexes, men and women. Tell average Americans that sex is actually a spectrum of differences, and that there are societies which divide this spectrum into three or more sexes, and they'll just look at you funny. This is not because Americans are ignoramuses--it's just what we learned at home and were taught at school. Men have penises and testicles, children are told. Women have . . . well, women are presented as more complicated. Often children are told, "men have penises, women have vaginas." But then they learn at school (or in schoolyard talk) that the vagina is "the hole where a penis can go," but there are more parts to the female anatomy, and the most sensitive bit is the clitoris. By high school biology class most of us have dutifully learned that the technical term for the female genitalia is the vulva, made up of not only clitoris and vagina but labia minora and majora, the inner and outer lips, and that inside women have ovaries and uteri. What we are taught about male anatomy remains simple: men have a penis and testes. From this anatomical distinction we are taught to understand people as falling into two camps: straightforward, goal-oriented, insensitive men and complicated, vulnerable, sensitive women. That's gender dyadism, American style--the fodder for endless TV sitcoms.

What we are not usually taught is that that all humans start out in the womb with the same initial genital structure. This is certainly studied by embryologists, if not familiar to the general public, and I will give a basic tour in this post. I'm not going to use the language embryologists do, though, because I find it very odd. They refer to the initial human form as the "indifferent stage," often say that the genitals "appear female," yet term the sensitive end of the genital structure the "phallus." The truth is that we all start out appearing neither female nor male, and we certainly don't start out with penises. We all start out intersex. Our initial form (which some of us retain) is pictured at the top of this post. Let's examine it.

Human Genital Development
We all begin life with genitals that have four basic external elements. At the top is the part numbered 1 on my drawing: the sensitive end of the phalloclitoris, which can differentiate into the head of the penis or clitoris. In the center is structure 2: an inset membrane that can widen or can seal as the fetus develops. It will form the urethra, and the vagina, if any. Around it is structure 3, which is capable of differentiation into either a phallic shaft, or clitoral body and labia minora. And at the outside is the fourth part, the labioscrotal swellings, which can develop into labia majora or a scrotum.

There is a lot of variation in how each of the four basic parts of the genitalia develop from person to person in all of us. For example, we acknowledge with a lot of rib-elbowing the variation in penile size. Variation in the size and shape of genitalia, and in other parts of the body, is part of human diversity. Surgeons are well aware that livers and lungs and blood vessels vary a lot between individuals, and may look quite different from an iconic anatomical diagram. But we rarely care about having an unusually shaped liver. The shape of genitals, however, is given huge cultural weight, because we pin our commitment to dyadic gender roles on them. We look at the shape of a newborn's genitalia and project a future of dresses and diets and talking about emotions, or sports and strength and getting under the hood of a car. We do know that people are complicated. Most of us want to be more than walking gender stereotypes. Still, we understand people through the lens of dyadic gender difference, and intersex people call that into question. When we see a baby born with intermediate genitalia, and can't project a future for them based on our well-known gender narratives, people in our society--including doctors--freak out.

Part of the reason our culture reacts so poorly to intersex people is that doctors have spent the past 75 years or so erasing the bodies of people like me. I'm referring not only to the fact that doctors surgically alter our genitals, nor only to the fact that we're given an "M" or an "F" on our birth certificates, but to the fact that anatomical illustrations don't illustrate our anatomies. Medical drawings and medical language obscure our existence. And since I want doctors and parents and society at large to stop freaking out and erasing us, I want that to change.

Anatomical Illustrations of Adult Genitalia
Variation in the shape of genitalia is a fact of nature. Some genital variations are labeled intersex conditions by doctors, and considered unacceptable malformations that must be "corrected." Other variations doctors insist with equal vehemence not to "really" be intersex. There is little logic to this if you look at it from the perspective of physical health or function. Instead what seems to matter are ideologies: first, an insistence that all people must be "really" male or female; and second, an anxious commitment to associating men with big penises. And this is visible when you examine anatomical drawings.

Let's look at how doctors portray adult genitalia. Anatomy drawings in Western medicine present two and only two types of "normal" genitals. I don't have permission to post copyrighted medical illustrations, but a sample female genital diagram can be see here, and an example of a male genital diagram here. These drawings of dyadic sexual anatomy could be critiqued in many ways, but for now let's consider just one thing: the way the phalloclitoris is portrayed. In the female drawing, it's presented as a tiny clitoral dot, with the label pointing at a spot the size of a small pea. In the male drawing, it's presented as a huge penis, shown in the illustration I've linked as extending beyond the testes, apparently 8 inches or more in length even in its flaccid state. To put it plainly, the "normal penis" in this medical drawing is porn-star sized rather than average, and massive in comparison to the petite "normal clitoris."

Not only do these medical illustrations exaggerate sexual differentiation, they obscure rather than illuminate shared anatomy. Note that only the tip of phalloclitoral structure protruding from the foreskin or "hood" is labeled "clitoris." In fact, the phalloclitoris is similar in size between people at all points on the sex spectrum. In people with genitals that conform closely to the male end of the sex spectrum, the structure I've labeled #3 above merges into one erectile column. "Men" get a "penile shaft." In people with genitals that conform closely to the female norm, the two sides of the structure spread apart and surround the labia majora. "Women" get . . . well, what do you call that? Anatomists call these two feminized sides of the phalloclitoris the "clitoral crura," a term that most laypeople have never learned at school. Just like the penile shaft they are made of several inches of spongy tissue that fills with blood and erects during sexual excitement. You can see an anatomical illustration here (look at the part labeled "crus clitoris," the singular of "crura" in Latin). As you can see, the phalloclitoris is actually quite similar in men and women. The tip bends down in women and the two sides are joined together in men, but the basic structure is the same.

You would imagine that anatomical drawings would illustrate all of our genital structures to increase understanding. But do a Google image search for "female genital anatomy" and you'll see hundreds of images that look like this--and just one image in the first 10 pages that shows the crura. The anatomical illustrations that are used on educational and medical websites conceal rather than illuminate the similarities in everyone's phalloclitoral anatomy.

Do a Google search for just "genital anatomy" and you see dyadic illustrations of two very different types of genitalia. You don't see the shared embryonic anatomy from which we all develop, you don't see how all people have similar phalloclitoral structures as adults, and you don't see the wide spectrum of adult genital forms that exist. You see the ideology of sex dyadism, rather than the fact of the sex spectrum.

The Moral of the Anatomical Fable

In my next post I will discuss the common variations on the human genital theme, and why some and not others are called intersex conditions by doctors. What I want to conclude with today is the fact that language and the images scientists and doctors use exaggerate the differences between "normal" male and female genitalia. In a culture where people believe genitals determine gender, this makes men and women seem in general more different, more alien from one another, harming us all. And for intersex people, anatomical drawings and language present us as bizarre, inexplicable freaks who require medical "correction."

We need to change the language we use. Yes, sexual differentiation of bodies happens. The average person who was assigned male at birth has smaller nipples than the average person who was assigned female at birth. But we call the erectile tip of the areola a "nipple" whatever the sex of the person it adorns. A phalloclitoris is a phalloclitoris, erectile and sensitive--no matter if the person possessing it is deemed male, female, or intersex. In simple terms, some of us are more "outies" and some are more "innies" and some right in between--but we all share the same genital structures. You have a phalloclitoris, and so do I. We are all variations on the same bodily theme, and there is no need to react to intersex bodies with pity or horror.

We've Always Been Here

I exist.

When is the last time somebody told you that there is not such thing. . . as you?

OK, perhaps that's not an experience you've had, but I encounter it periodically. This morning I had a frustrating experience with a person who insisted that intersexuality is a myth. He was certain that sex dyadism was an unassailable natural fact--that people and animals come in two flavors, male and female. In his mind, hermaphrodites and centaurs and dragons were equally mythic creatures, and equally likely to be waiting in line at the store with him.

Really, what this guy objected to was my appearance, which is androgynously masculine. He wanted me to "make up my mind." Basically, he objected to genderqueering on the grounds that gender identities must be dyadic because bodies are sexually dyadic. When I pointed out that I am actually intersex, he dismissed me as making a deluded, faddish assertion. He compared me to a furry, and dissed me and furries together as crazy folk possessed by a trendy madness. He told me to "grow up."

How would you respond to that? Am I expected to walk around with an MRI in my pocket? I've already posted how people don't get to do a pants check on me.

I choose to respond less personally, with empirical data, scientific and historical. Though in truth, when people are religiously attached to a belief in sex dyadism, all the empirical evidence in the world may fail to convince them to let go of their dogma. That was the case in my conversation this morning. Still, others may listen, so I share some data you can use should you find yourself in a position like the one I was in today.

The Divine Androgyne

Many--perhaps most--world religions incorporate divine androgyny. This reflects the presence of intersexuality in the collective unconsciousness. Angels in Judeo-Christian tradition are neither male nor female. In Greek mythology, the child of Hermes (the jock god) and Aphrodite (prom queen goddess of love) was Hermaphrodite, as seen in the image attached to this post. The ancient Egyptian god/dess of the Nile was Hapi, whose breasts and phallus were depicted as constantly flowing with fertility, like the Nile itself.

Some intersex advocates are uncomfortable discussing intersex deities in the world pantheon, because they feel it links us with fantasy. But mythos is based in fact--sometimes psychological, and sometimes material. It can be very useful. Psychologically, it can give us validation, and materially, it gives us clues to the historical past. After all, Homer's city of Troy was considered mythic until archeologist Heinrich Schliemann took the Illiad seriously and located and excavated Troy's ruins.

What the myths of the world show us is that intersexuality did not signify barren disorder, as it does to Western doctors today. It signified perfection (for the Judeo-Christian), beauty (for the Greeks), creation (for the Egyptians).

Cultural Traditions

More important from the empirical position of "proof" of our eternal presence are the cultural traditions that societies have all over the world for giving social roles to the intersex. For example, I'm Jewish. Jewish religious practice is traditionally highly sexed and gendered--males are circumcised on the 8th day of life, females must immerse in a mikvah after completing a menstrual cycle. What then of intersex children? The gemara instructs that intersex children (and animals) are given two additional gender titles, androgyne and tumtum. A Jewish child whose genitalia include both a clitorophallus and an invagination is an androgyne, and must follow all of the rules applying to males and females. A child without significant external genitalia is tumtum and is exempted from all gendered rules.

Intersex people have been born into all cultures throughout history, so there are many traditions for giving them a place in society. As intersexuality has been erased by modern medicine, the meaning of these traditions has often shifted or been forgotten. For example, Native American traditions for giving a socially valuable place to the two-spirited are now typically understood as relating to lesbian, gay, or transgendered individuals, while the home they gave to intersex children is largely forgotton. The Hawai'ian role of mahu is another example. Today, the word "mahu" is often assumed to mean crossdresser, and has taken on a derogatory edge, like "fag." But in Hawai'ian tradition, intersex children were deemed mahu, and it was an important social role. Individuals who were mahu memorized oral traditions, were instructors of the revered hula, and were consulted when infants were named.

Scientific Evidence

It seems ridiculous to present scientific evidence that intersex conditions exist--rather like gathering scientific evidence that some people are born with red hair, or that animals of all sorts have albino offspring at times. But for convincing those who demand such evidence, some facts.

Intersexuality is common in pigs. The people of Vanuatu revered intersex pigs, and carved their likeness, genitalia and all, onto statuary and bowls. British farming tradition was less appreciative. Intersex livestock were called freemartins, and in some localities killed at birth. In the U.S., where the most revered animals are our domestic pets, intersex is studied by veterinarians in cats and dogs. Intersex conditions have been studied by scientsts in goats, in primates, in mice, in horses, in smallmouth bass . . . in fact, just about any animal you can name.

The Moral of the Story

Intersex happens. It always has happened; it's hardly some new discovery or "fad." In fact, the fad in the historical story is the recent medical erasure of intersex people, our surgical alteration, and the attachment of shame to our bodies. We've been made so invisible that most people in Western nations aren't even aware we exist, and can voice the myth that we are mythic right to our faces. Let's hope that this fad passes soon.

Viewing Intersex Genitalia (Note: Explicit Artwork Included)

Disclaimer

This is a drawing I did of the genitals of an intersexed person. If you don't wish to see explicit material, please skip this post. If you are an intersex person or an ally of ours who is concerned that posting images of intersex people's genitalia is abusive, please read my previous post. I discuss at length the many ways that photographs of us are exploited by medical practitioners and others, and why I believe humane images are necessary. Thanks.

Does a Picture Paint a Thousand Words?

When you look at the drawing above, what do you see? I see a set of external genitalia, an intersexed set that falls pretty near the center of the spectrum of male-to-female genital arrangements. Most people in our particular culture and historical moment apparently see something else. They see. . . something wrong. They want to know what it means. They want to be told whether these bits belong to someone who is "really a man" or "really a woman." And the authority they turn to to answer this (impossible) question is not the person possessing the genitals, nor regious authority, nor social scientists, but the medical profession.

Doctors get a lot of prestige from being the people who get to interpret life's mysteries for the masses. And they have an answer. I'll tell you what that answer is in a little while, but first, before what you see gets filtered through the medical lens, let me describe the structures you see depicted.

Anatomy of an Intersex Person

There are a great number of intersex bodily configurations, both internal and external. Our genitals come in many shapes and sizes--as in fact do those of people who are not categorized as intersex. What you see in this set of intermediate genitalia includes a phalloclitoris of intermediate size. Apparently many people experience something similar to a foreground-background illusion looking at the phalloclitoris (you know, like the illusion that looks either like two faces or a vase, which you can see here). They see a little penis, then a big clitoris, then a little penis. This flickering view has nothing to do with the genitals themselves, but with the lens of dyadic sex we've been trained to expect. This illustrates how we don't just see the world-in-itself out there, but a filtered view that imposes cultural understandings onto what we see.

The shaft and glans of this individual's phalloclitoris are mostly covered by a sheath of sensitive skin that we learn to call a clitoral hood or penile foreskin--again, dyadic terminology. The sheath of skin is bound down on either side, and the underside of the phalloclitoris is attached to the individual's body. Thus, when this person's phalloclitoris erects, it does not stand out from hir body but stays tucked close, pointing rearwards, as is typical for a clitoris.

At the center of this person's genitalia you see an invagination. It is fairly shallow, unlike the deeper vagina of someone with a classic female genital configuration. It is lined with delicate, lubricating skin. The urethral meatus ("pee hole") is in the central slit of the invagination.

Around the shallow invagination you see structures which are intermediate between labia majora (in female anatomic terms) or scrotum (in male terms). In this individual, there are testes that have descended and are held within the labioscrotum.

What Doctors See

As I've explained in an earlier post (here), doctors are the enforcers of sexual dyadism, and see all people as having a "true" or "best" sex, either male or female. Most often they like to assign intersex people to be female, and they remove or "reduce" our phalloclitori. They believe, though they tend not to say this, that it's better to be a female-assigned person with a surgically-constructed clitoris that feels nothing than to be a male-assigned person with a small penis. What they say, I kid you not, is that "it's easier to make a hole than a pole."

Doctors still take the "hard route" and attempt to construct a penis at times, and it's in individuals like the one whose genitals I've drawn here that they are most likely to do it: those with external testes. Internal ones they generally remove, claiming they pose a risk for cancer, but external ones they tend to leave in place. Finding external testes, doctors proclaim an intersex person to be "really male." Therefore, doctors looking at these genitals don't see a person of intermediate sex, they see a male with a "disorder of sex development" that they would term "perineal hypospadias with chordee."

On Hypospadias

As I've said, genitals exist on a spectrum. People with hypospadias run along the spectrum from maleformed genitals to the smack-dab center illustrated in this post. In people with what doctors call "first degree hypospadias," the genitals include typical testicles and a penile form that varies from the average male's only by having the urethra open, not at the center of the head of the penis, but on the underside of the head. Generally, the further down the shaft or perineum that the urethra opens, the more intermediate the genital form (doctors would say "the more severe the malformation").

Doctors almost always propose surgery for infants with hypospadias, even when there is only a small shift of the urethral opening. This causes scarring and loss of sensation, perhaps very mild, or perhaps leading to full numbness of the penile head and underside of the shaft. Constricted areas, holes that leak urine ("fistulas"), and recurrent bladder infections are common side effects, but are all deemed by doctors to be outweighed by the benefit of surgery. That benefit is basically avoiding the social mockery doctors presume is unavoidable for people with atypical genitals--the "locker room factor." Many male-identified people who had childhood surgery for minor hypospadias are very critical of the decision that was made for them, and, like intersex advocates, argue that no genital surgery should be performed unless and until a person grows up and chooses it. They'd rather have a penis with an off-center urethral opening that is fully sensate than a numbed phallus with an on-center urethra.

For people with perineal hypospadias, the consequences of surgery are more severe. Instead of having the functional genitals with which they were born--atypical but sensate intersex genitals that lubricate, erect, and experience pleasure--they wind up with small surgically-constructed penises that may be severely scarred and mostly numb. Instead of simply sitting down to pee, they may deal with multiple fistulas, a stuttering urine stream, and frequent bladder infections. In individuals with chordee, as in the drawing, since the clitorophallus is joined with the body, part of the glans and/or shaft will be cut off, left buried in the perineum or excised completely. Often there are multiple repair surgeries over the course of childhood--which is a source of stigma, not a shield from it. And significant numbers of these individuals grow up not identifying with the male assignment they were given, and in deep distress over the loss of genital forms they wish they had been permitted to retain.

The Moral of The Post

If people could look at intersex genitals and actually see them for what they are, a great deal of pain and suffering would be avoided. What you see in the image is an intermediate genital form, not warped female genitals or disordered male ones. When a child with intermediate genitals grows up, zie may identify as female, or male, or intersex, and should be allowed to decide what surgery if any is appropriate--but few get that chance. Wrong decisions are made for us all the time, and this happens in large part because our families have never seen genitals like ours before. They don't know how to interpret what they see because they have no context. So they turn to the doctors, who get a lot of prestige (and money) out of diagnosing us, selecting a dyadic sex for us, and surgically altering us without our consent. And not knowing anything about intersexuality, families go along. It's for this reason that I think it's so important that people see images of the full genital spectrum.

Artwork by Luminis, marker on paper, digitally manipulated. Copyright retained.

The Intersex Peep Show

No, You Can't Look in My Pants

Since I started coming out publicly as intersex, I've been asked by some people I've barely or never met to show them a photo of exactly what I keep between my legs. This is a very odd question--consider how you'd react if you received this request from some stranger. It can be disconcerting and creepy to realize that someone you don't know is thinking about your genitalia, requesting a photograph.

So no, I don't spread my legs for strangers. And motivation doesn't matter much to me in answering requests. Some people ask because they're kinksters. Don't get me wrong--I support everyone's right to their consensual kink--but I have not consented, and they don't get to play. Other people ask because of simple intellectual curiosity, and I support intellectual curiosity too. But I am not a specimen any more than I am a porno spread. I'm a person, entitled to my dignity.

Recently somebody contacted me wanting me to describe my genitals and my surgical history so zie could feel confident I was really intersex and not some poser. And while I empathize with intersex people feeling used or misrepresented, the answer remains no, you don't get to look in my pants to perform your gatekeeping.

But How Can We Not Discuss Intersex People's Genitalia?

This is an entirely different question than asking to see my. . . jonk. You're right, it seems odd to discuss intersex status without discussing genitals. I do want to point out that we discuss male experience, female experience, and the experiences of androgynes and genderqueer folk all the time without discussing their genitals. We don't ask to verify what they've got down there before discussing their gendered lives. And what defines intersex experience isn't genitalia but the social reaction to our bits--the way our very existence seems to create a crisis for medical professionals, families, and ordinary folk. There's no need to discuss our genitalia to address that social reaction.

But. I do think we should, as a society, discuss genitalia. How they come in a wide variety of configurations, a spectrum not a binary. We need to be aware of variation, not just in the genitalia of those of us labelled intersex, but those considered unproblematically male or female. Lots of nonintersex people feel anxiety about whether their genitals are "normal," or too small, or too loose, or too asymmetrical. We should know what genitals really look like. And a picture does paint a thousand words.

What's Wrong with Pictures of Genitals

The photos and illustrations of genitals most people see are highly problematic. They do injury both to the viewer and the person being viewed. Mostly, we're exposed to two sorts of pictures: either pornographic images, or medical ones.

I'm strongly opposed to censorship, and I stand up for the right of people to produce and view porn, but most of it is terrible. I'll mention two of the reasons why: first, most porn does harm to the viewer by showing a single "idealized" vision of the human body, and secondly, it harms the models (especially the female-assigned ones) because they are viewed by our sexnegative society as whores and perverts. From an intersex position, the representations of "us" as "hermaphrodites" in most porn are actually usually photos of nonintersex male-to-female trans people financing their transitions by filling the demand for images of "chicks with dicks." In a world where sex transitions are both costly and not covered by medical insurance, and where trans people suffer profoundly from employment discrimination, I empathize with the "herm" porn models. But the fetish market that they feed gives people a very skewed perspective on the lives of intersex and trans folks, and this peep show teaches people very little about what intersex people's parts look like.

Then there are clinical medical images, of two varieties. One are the sort of illustrations we see in educational contexts. For example, buy a package of tampons or condoms, and you'll find instructional illustrations included. Intersex genitals are never pictured, but really, few people's genitals look like the images you see. The illustrations in the tampon packages are almost always hairless with tiny symmetrical labia minora--they look prepubescent, and prepubescent people don't get menstrual periods. The penises in the condom illustrations are all circumcized, erect at a high angle, and look more like a hot dog than a human. Clinical educational illustrations seem designed to make ordinary people feel anxious about their genitals, their small penises and large clitori, their veins and moles and asymmetries and hair.

Still, at least nonintersex people see illustrations that somewhat approximate their bits.

If you want to see what intersex people's genitals look like, you have to turn to another sort of medical image: the clinical photograph. And the photographs range from depressing to truly appalling. Generally they're photos of children, taken without their consent. Sometimes you can see that the child is being held down. Orifices are stretched open by adult hands, foreskins are pulled up in the jaws of forceps, and ruler scales cut into delicate skin. The photographs are utterly dehumanizing--people reduced to "disordered" genitals and treated as specimens, with as much consideration as a doctor would show a biopsied sample of a tumor. It's as much horror show as peep show. Intersex children are treated as freaks, forced to spread their legs, and hurt without their consent--and because it's done in the name of Science, it's supposed to be OK.

It's not OK.

My Complicity, My Shame

The lack of education about intersex genitals is harmful in multiple ways, and one of them is that it makes us into peepers, and collaborators in the abusive treatment of intersex children.

I grew up knowing I was genitally different, but unsure of what it might mean. By my early teens I was looking through medical journals for pictures that might tell me more. I'll post sometime on my academic research on teratology, the branch of medicine that deals with "birth defects"--suffice it to say for now that I've looked at a lot of medical images of intersex people. And I can try to justify it in terms of personal need and academic critique, but in the end, I'm complicit. Not that I've ever sent a stranger an email saying "Can you send me a photo of your privates?" But I've contributed to maintaining the market for exploitative and abusive medical photography of intersex people.

What Can Be Done?

It seems to me that there is a real need for a collection of cruelty-free, nondistorted images of intersex people's bodies, including our genitals, for people to view. I imagine that illustrations would be best. There may be people out there with various intersex conditions or "DSDs" who would be willing to be photographed by a respectful ally for a public image gallery, but I suspect most people, like myself, would be very wary of the idea. Drawings would avoid the issues of shaming or disrespectful use of our bodies. Ideally, they would be nonidealized. They could be warm rather than clinical, human rather than dehumanized.

I'm going to try my hand at it. I'll see if posting a drawing turns my blog from the intersex roadshow to the intersex peepshow--I certainly hope not. But it does seem like an important project to me.

The image in this post is a manipulation by me of a photograph provided under a Creative Commons license by just.Luc here.