No clitting! We need to talk about clitoris transplantation

In the last two decades, genital transplants have emerged as another type of quality-of-life transplants. Successful allogenic transplantations of the uterus, ovary, testicle, and penis have all been reported. Yet, there is no discussion of clitoris transplantation in the medical literature, mass media, and everywhere else I searched. This surgery could be used for cisgender women who have a clitoral injury or disease or who have undergone female genital cutting. I examine the gender norms regarding sexuality and reproduction to show how they shape surgical advancements. My point in this paper is not to take a normative position on status of current genital transplantations. Rather, I highlight that their existence is due, at least in part, because they align with dominant gender norms: penis and testicle transplantations reinforce the importance of men's virility and the existence of normal male genitalia, whereas uterus and ovary transplantations uphold the conflation of women and reproduction and the strong valuing of women's fertility. That medical advances reflect cultural values is not a new claim. What is new in this paper is the discussion of how sexism norms-regarding the invisibility of the clitoris and the devaluing of women's sexual pleasure- has engendered various types of genital transplants, but not clitoris transplantation.

Automated summary

In the past two decades, genital transplants have become a type of quality-of-life transplant. Successful allogenic transplantations of various organs have been reported, except for clitoris transplantation. This paper examines the influence of gender norms on surgical advancements and points out that current genital transplantations align with dominant gender norms, but the absence of clitoris transplantation reflects sexism and the devaluation of women's sexual pleasure.