
The nerves and vasculature of the clitoris are absent from OB/GYN literature - jMyles
https://medium.com/@jessica86/ob-gyns-dont-learn-the-nerves-and-vasculature-of-the-clitoris-ccc56e55ac90
======
jazoom
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.

~~~
jessicapin
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-an...](https://medium.com/@jessica86/sexism-in-grays-
anatomy-the-anatomical-basis-for-clinical-practice-41e-d1a95695467d)

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.

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

~~~
jazoom
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
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
But that's nothing to do with the NSFW warning. I purposely included the
comment about browsing Facebook to make this more clear.

~~~
tcbawo
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.

