Why have Stanford med students not noticed the Anatomage Table is missing the nerves of the clitoris?

“At Stanford University, the Anatomage Table is becoming a core component of the anatomy courses for both medical and undergraduate studies.”

There is just one huge problem here: the Anatomage Table omits the nerves and vasculature of the clitoris. Countless other small nerves and vessels are included. They show nerves extending into baby toes. So why not show where they travel in the clitoris?

More importantly, given this has been used since 2011, why am I the first to notify Anatomage of this gap?

I thought it was supposed to be difficult to get into Stanford Medical School. How do smart people look at 3D models and illustrations of the clitoris and not see a problem with the lack of detailed anatomy? How can people who were taught about the many nerve endings of the clitoral glans in their undergrad sexuality classes not get that this means there are large axon bundles leading up to the glans?

Are people so uncomfortable with the clitoris that their brains just go into retard mode when they consider the anatomy? What is it?

Should Stanford be using a teaching tool that is so fundamentally and blatantly sexist in its presentation of anatomy?

Virtual reality simulators are being used to teach anatomy more and more. What does it mean when culture is influencing what is and isn’t included? This amounts to censorship in science. Science, above all else, is supposed to be objective.

This is academic clitorectomy, in which at least one of the most reputable academic institutions is a participant.

Right now the nerves are the clitoris can be easily dissected by anyone who makes a minimal effort during cadaver labs. We all might envision a future where virtual dissection tables replace cadaver dissections in medical training. What will that mean for the anatomy that gets excluded?