April 18, 2021

The Army and the Civil Guard again exclude those who do not have genitalia or suffer any malformation | Society

The Army and the Civil Guard again exclude those who do not have genitalia or suffer any malformation | Society

The lack of a testicle, the absence of a uterus, a penis with a size below the average or a few ovaries smaller than normal are reasons that prevent testing for access to the Army and the Civil Guard. This Tuesday was published in the BOE the update of medical grounds of exclusion to enter the military corps and, among them, dysgenesis, hypogenesis and gonadal and genital agenesis appear: malformations, anomalies or absence of genitals or gonads (ovaries or testicles). The conditions were already included in the previous legislation, although in a generalized way (it did not specify any pathology) and were only grounds for exclusion if they altered "the normal exercise of the military profession". Now, that tagline has disappeared and for experts in urology and gynecology this criterion "is random" and "does not make any sense" from a medical point of view because "they are not issues that affect what that work requires". So far, eThe Ministry of Defense has not answered on the criterion it has followed to decide those reasons for exclusion.

The gynecologist Ana Nieto summarizes what each of the terms means: "Agenesis is the absence of genitals or gonads, hypogenesis is a deficient development and dysgenesis is malformation". In the case of women, Nieto gives examples for each pathology: the agenesis can be the "lack of uterus or ovaries", the dysgenesis, "a double uterus", and the hypogenesis, "a uterus or very small ovaries, which they have not had a normal development ". This is the only thing that affects fertility, to reproduction, "but beyond that, nothing, because in the case of lack of hormones there are treatments to compensate them and in the case of malformations, there are some that can be operated," adds Nieto, who says he does not understand the reasons for this exclusion.

Irene Peñalver, also gynecologist, says that in many cases women do not realize that they suffer from any of these conditions until they are adults: "When they grow up and the rule does not come or when they want to be mothers and realize that there is a problem, but excepting specific cases, this does not imply any problem in terms of effort or development of the functions of those jobs ".

In the case of men, the perplexity of urologists it's the same. Juan Carlos Ruiz of the Red explains that agenesis (the absence of testes, for example), dysgenesis (the malformation of them) or hypogenesis (a micropenis) can mean "infertility, lack of spermatozoa or low levels of testosterone, which can be complemented with a treatment, and it will not affect the work. " Write down the same Ignacio Moncada, which broadens the issue: "It could also cause alterations in phenotypic sex, that is, in the more or less manly aspect that can be had, but that has nothing to do with the ability to work in this area."

Both Ruiz de la Roja and Moncada also ask about the "nonsense" of this decision beyond medical criteria. "Yes men and women can be military, does not matter what chromosomal or phenotypic gender you have, what difference does it make to look like a man or a woman? It does not have any transcendence and it does not have to alter or prevent a profession that can be developed equally by one sex than another, "argues Moncada, who also refers to the list as" something outdated, of non-permanent problems, some, and not relevant to be military, others ".

Orchitis (inflammation of one or both testicles) "is completely cured and there is no sequelae left"; Hypospadias or varicocele (a malformation whereby the urinary orifice is not in the usual place and the enlargement of the veins inside the loose skin that holds the testes, respectively) "They can be annoying, but they are solvable and have nothing to do with having more or less capacity to work". Moncada believes that in this list there are a number of issues that have not been "really valued and would require a review". "It does not fit the times, it's a discriminatory list."


Source link