Who knew they could be so easily combined?
At last week’s gynaecologists’ conference in Paris (what is the collective noun for a group of gynaecologists?), organiser Sylvain Mimoun declared that 60 per cent of women have one, and that proper “interaction” with it can make it increasingly “functional”. The doctors then couldn’t resist thumbing their noses at the British scientists who recently claimed to have proved the non-existence of the G-spot after they studied 1,800 exceptionally patient identical twins.
“The King’s College study shows a lack of respect for what women say,” sneered a “leading French surgeon”, Pierre Foldes.
“The conclusions were completely erroneous because they were based solely on genetic observations. It is clear that in female sexuality there is a variability. It cannot be reduced to a yes or no or an on or off.”
Gynaecologist Odile Buisson added: “I don’t want to stigmatise at all,” before going on to stigmatise the British researchers. “I think the Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character means you are very pragmatic. There has to be a cause for everything, a gene for everything. It’s totalitarian.” Ouch….
Some British women find it dispiriting to be told about the non-existence of the G-spot; but still more are disappointed to hear all these French women bragging about having them while we, instead, have fluoridisation and proper tea. “Weeth zees long ‘olidays we ‘ave plenty of time for ze looking,” they seem to be saying. “We ‘ave it, ze G-spot. It ees ‘ere!” Yet others are murmuring that it seems a peculiar preoccupation of (mostly male) research scientists to want to find something that many rational people are certain isn’t there.
Well, it’s educational. The University of St Thomas is holding a summer school on Philosophy of Religion that will teach students many things. Including that the field is just not for girls.
Thanks, K, and apologies for the delay!
Reader TM has alerted us to proposed changes in the Diagnostic Criteria for Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM-V. These matter because, as I understand it, satisfying these criteria is (at least sometimes) necessary (though not sufficient) for one to get access to certain medical procedures/treatments, and for one’s transition to be legally recognised. (Please correct me if I’m wrong!) TM points out that the criteria are looser than they used to be, and also that they allow for the possibility of more than 2 genders. Here are the criteria:
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration, as manifested by 2* or more of the following indicators: [2, 3, 4]
1. a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [13, 16]
2. a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) 
3. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
4. a strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
5. a strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
6. a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
I was surprised to see that the careful parenthetical about alternative genders is absent from criterion 3, which seems odd. I’d very much like to know what others think about the proposed revisions.