4 ms·

The nerves and vasculature of the clitoris are absent from OB/GYN literature

31 points by jMyles 8y ago

stephengillie 8y ago
Caution: graphic illustrations of anatomy. Probably not safe for work, unless you're a surgeon.
- jazoom 8y ago
  Genuine question: will people actually get offended if they walk past your screen and get a glimpse of an anatomical drawing? Or is it seen as a not-appropriate-for-work thing? If so, why not? I'd think more of my colleague for reading this in their lunch break than reading through their Facebook feed. I would be even more impressed if that colleague wasn't a doctor.
  - tcbawo 8y ago
    Maybe not offended, but it's very hard to justify as even remotely work-related. In many companies, their policy is to use their resources for work activity only. It's CYA from multiple angles.
    - jazoom 8y ago
      But that's nothing to do with the NSFW warning. I purposely included the comment about browsing Facebook to make this more clear.
      - tcbawo 8y ago
        Someone could be offended if they considered it something other than educational (sexual, religious, political). That's highly subjective, though, which is why most companies have policies to use company resources only for official use. Also, depending on the workplace, some people might get pissed by seeing their coworkers idly browsing the web at work.
- onemoresoop 8y ago
  Thanks for the heads up as I was about to click the link.
jazoom 8y ago
This is pretty interesting. The comments are also interesting. The author of this article was apparently banned from /r/feminism and a well-known ob/gyn feminist disagrees with the author's position. That makes me hesitant to simply believe what the author is saying without digging deeper myself. I don't think we had more focus on male anatomy in medical school than on female anatomy. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was quite the opposite. There's a whole unit on female anatomy and a compulsory ob/gyn rotation, but not a compulsory urology rotation (most students don't even get to do a urology term). This suggests to me the isn't some conspiracy in medicine against female anatomy. Though, I can certainly believe the author's claims. Tradition holds too much weight in medicine. Also, it's ridiculous how few lay people actually know what a vagina is. Most times I see/hear that word they are actually talking about the vulva.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jessicapin 8y ago
  Hey jazoom, I am not sure how or why I got banned from r/feminism. I think it may have been because the initial article was titled, "OB/GYNs don't learn the nerves and vasculature of the clitoris." This was a problematic title, as some may know it. The biggest reason you see OB/GYNs saying they know it is because they think they know it, but they don't. This becomes apparent when they start saying things like, "the nerves are very small and difficult to dissect" or even "the nerves are microscopic." Because the anatomy is is some general anatomy textbooks like Grant's, Clemente, and Netter, it is taught in some medical schools (Wash U, U Chicago), and some people are actually learning it (more so than I thought). I also realized they have included the anatomy longer than previously thought, as I previously relied too much on a physician ex to tell me what was in the textbooks. The main anatomy textbook he had in med school, Rohen's still doesn't have it. I have updated my article to try to explain that sometimes it is taught in medical school. I know as of 2012, it was not taught at UTSW. I know that on r/residency, most of the doctors who answer me telling me I don't know what I'm talking about do not know it. Some even tell me the nerves are "microscopic." I'm talking, specifically, about the exclusion of clitoral anatomy. So, sure, the vagina, cervis, uterus, and ovaries are covered in depth. However, female sexual response is very important. People will think the anatomy is there because the anatomy is shown and/or described leading up to it. Maybe OB/GYNs do learn it. But if they do, the ones that do are being quite negligent in not speaking up about the omission from their textbooks. They are also failing to mention it in journal articles on sexual function or female genital cosmetic surgery. Right? So why aren't they mentioning it if they know it? One OB/GYN I talk to did mention it in his textbook on genital cosmetic surgeries, but he actually misquoted his source, so it's slightly incorrect. He has been super supportive though. However, some general anatomy textbooks still don't know it. Here is a review I just posted on Gray's Anatomy. https://medium.com/@jessica86/sexism-in-grays-anatomy-the-anatomical-basis-for-clinical-practice-41e-d1a95695467d https://medium.com/@jessica86/sexism-in-grays-anatomy-the-an... I have been posting reviews with screen shots so people can see what I'm saying is true. I also posted photos of clitorises, which include some cadaver dissections at the bottom, to show people what this anatomy looks like. I've also thought maybe there should be a way to put money behind my claims. I can also get my plastic surgeon father to verify everything I say as far as it being dangerous and messed up that the anatomy isn't in the textbooks. He also thinks fundamentally the refusal to add it to boards means GYNs aren't going to know it. The biggest way to solve it is to just get it added to board exams. If they "know" it, they can test for it on boards.

31 points by jMyles 8y ago

stephengillie 8y ago

Caution: graphic illustrations of anatomy. Probably not safe for work, unless you're a surgeon.

jazoom 8y ago
Genuine question: will people actually get offended if they walk past your screen and get a glimpse of an anatomical drawing? Or is it seen as a not-appropriate-for-work thing? If so, why not? I'd think more of my colleague for reading this in their lunch break than reading through their Facebook feed. I would be even more impressed if that colleague wasn't a doctor.
- tcbawo 8y ago
  Maybe not offended, but it's very hard to justify as even remotely work-related. In many companies, their policy is to use their resources for work activity only. It's CYA from multiple angles.
  - jazoom 8y ago
    But that's nothing to do with the NSFW warning. I purposely included the comment about browsing Facebook to make this more clear.
    - tcbawo 8y ago
      Someone could be offended if they considered it something other than educational (sexual, religious, political). That's highly subjective, though, which is why most companies have policies to use company resources only for official use. Also, depending on the workplace, some people might get pissed by seeing their coworkers idly browsing the web at work.
onemoresoop 8y ago
Thanks for the heads up as I was about to click the link.

jazoom 8y ago

This is pretty interesting. The comments are also interesting. The author of this article was apparently banned from /r/feminism and a well-known ob/gyn feminist disagrees with the author's position. That makes me hesitant to simply believe what the author is saying without digging deeper myself. I don't think we had more focus on male anatomy in medical school than on female anatomy. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was quite the opposite. There's a whole unit on female anatomy and a compulsory ob/gyn rotation, but not a compulsory urology rotation (most students don't even get to do a urology term). This suggests to me the isn't some conspiracy in medicine against female anatomy. Though, I can certainly believe the author's claims. Tradition holds too much weight in medicine. Also, it's ridiculous how few lay people actually know what a vagina is. Most times I see/hear that word they are actually talking about the vulva.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jessicapin 8y ago
Hey jazoom, I am not sure how or why I got banned from r/feminism. I think it may have been because the initial article was titled, "OB/GYNs don't learn the nerves and vasculature of the clitoris." This was a problematic title, as some may know it. The biggest reason you see OB/GYNs saying they know it is because they think they know it, but they don't. This becomes apparent when they start saying things like, "the nerves are very small and difficult to dissect" or even "the nerves are microscopic." Because the anatomy is is some general anatomy textbooks like Grant's, Clemente, and Netter, it is taught in some medical schools (Wash U, U Chicago), and some people are actually learning it (more so than I thought). I also realized they have included the anatomy longer than previously thought, as I previously relied too much on a physician ex to tell me what was in the textbooks. The main anatomy textbook he had in med school, Rohen's still doesn't have it. I have updated my article to try to explain that sometimes it is taught in medical school. I know as of 2012, it was not taught at UTSW. I know that on r/residency, most of the doctors who answer me telling me I don't know what I'm talking about do not know it. Some even tell me the nerves are "microscopic." I'm talking, specifically, about the exclusion of clitoral anatomy. So, sure, the vagina, cervis, uterus, and ovaries are covered in depth. However, female sexual response is very important. People will think the anatomy is there because the anatomy is shown and/or described leading up to it. Maybe OB/GYNs do learn it. But if they do, the ones that do are being quite negligent in not speaking up about the omission from their textbooks. They are also failing to mention it in journal articles on sexual function or female genital cosmetic surgery. Right? So why aren't they mentioning it if they know it? One OB/GYN I talk to did mention it in his textbook on genital cosmetic surgeries, but he actually misquoted his source, so it's slightly incorrect. He has been super supportive though. However, some general anatomy textbooks still don't know it. Here is a review I just posted on Gray's Anatomy. https://medium.com/@jessica86/sexism-in-grays-anatomy-the-anatomical-basis-for-clinical-practice-41e-d1a95695467d https://medium.com/@jessica86/sexism-in-grays-anatomy-the-an... I have been posting reviews with screen shots so people can see what I'm saying is true. I also posted photos of clitorises, which include some cadaver dissections at the bottom, to show people what this anatomy looks like. I've also thought maybe there should be a way to put money behind my claims. I can also get my plastic surgeon father to verify everything I say as far as it being dangerous and messed up that the anatomy isn't in the textbooks. He also thinks fundamentally the refusal to add it to boards means GYNs aren't going to know it. The biggest way to solve it is to just get it added to board exams. If they "know" it, they can test for it on boards.