Pharyngula

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 27, 2010 10:49 PM

Finally. A sane policy statement.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 27, 2010 10:54 PM

Sane, yes, given the ridiculous hoopla. But the impetus for the nick procedure came from mothers trying to end the brutal stuff and wasn't actually suggested by the APA. To the best of my knowledge, all the policy statement suggested was that the nick procedure might be considered as a means of harm reduction.

Ultimately I think teaching people that FGM kills women and their babies is going to be a more useful approach.

Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2010 10:55 PM

When do we get outraged about male genital mutilation?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 27, 2010 10:59 PM

Mark:

When do we get outraged about male genital mutilation?

FFS, started with the 5th fucking comment this time.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 27, 2010 11:01 PM

Mark @ 5, if you want an answer, hit that handy little search box at the upper left of the page - there was a recent thread just for you guys and your penises. This is about females. See if you can work that out.

Posted by: HenryS | May 27, 2010 11:09 PM

Retracted??? Better than nothing, I guess but a more meaningful response by the AAP President would have been to remove the members of the AAP ethics(???) committee that passed that nauseating piece of cultural equivalency POS.

Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre | May 27, 2010 11:11 PM

I agree with Mark.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 27, 2010 11:14 PM

Great. See #9. Perhaps you can figure it out too.

Posted by: HenryS | May 27, 2010 11:16 PM

Under US Federal and State laws, it is a crime for Health care providers, etc not to report child abuse. These mutilated girls are being seen by members of the AAP who aren't reporting the abuse. It's past time for a real "come to jeebus" moment for these doctors.

Posted by: PseudoPserious | May 27, 2010 11:19 PM

I didn't find their original statement completely reprehensible.

Wasn't the context of the original statement something along the lines of "if the parents are completely batshit insane and insist on this horrific and barabaric practice, then perhaps performing this [[relatively harmless and infinitely preferable]] operation instead will prevent them from going to someone else who will completely destroy their daughter's sexual enjoyment forever"?

A complete disavowal of FGM is of course the only humane position, from a theoretical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, however, if the parents insist on having some kind of FGM performed, wouldn't taking a hardline stance be more harmful in the short term and not improve things long-term?

I'm probably wrong about this, as I haven't given it much thought or done any research, but this was my initial reaction to the previous thread.

(Disclaimer: I did not read the previous thread much beyond the first 50 or comments, so please be gentle with me if this ground is already well-tread.)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 27, 2010 11:24 PM

Nerd, congratulations - you have escaped the Whammo Procedure. Enjoy your freedom.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 27, 2010 11:25 PM

Nerd, I know, I know...

PseudoPserious:

I did not read the previous thread much beyond the first 50 or comments, so please be gentle with me if this ground is already well-tread.

This was not only well tread, it was stomped to death. I'd suggest going back to the initial thread, take a deep breath, get a drink or three and read.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2010 11:35 PM

When do we get outraged about male genital mutilation?

put your penis on the table, I'll hit it with a meat tenderizer, and we can then debate about whether you should be outraged or not.

m'kay?

Posted by: PseudoPserious | May 27, 2010 11:47 PM

I'd suggest going back to the initial thread, take a deep breath, get a drink or three and read.

Ugh. I'm not sure I have enough alcohol on hand for that.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 27, 2010 11:47 PM

Congratulations, Ichthyic. You, too, have escaped the Whammo Procedure. Tell Buffybot you merit the merino shorts.

Posted by: HenryS | May 27, 2010 11:51 PM

When do we get outraged about male genital mutilation??
********
More complicated issue. IIRC, the AAP was against male circumcision until the late '80 when several large studies showed reduced urinary tract infections and rarely kidney failure in circumcised male children. The AAP then went from "never medically indicated" to parents should be informed about risks vs benefitsof circumcision.

Now that several large prospective studies done in Africa show 60% reduction in HIV infection in circumcised males, the issue is confused even more.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 27, 2010 11:55 PM

PseudoPserious:

Ugh. I'm not sure I have enough alcohol on hand for that.

I know I don't. However, just in case anyone does want to read all the arguments, they can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/whatever_happened_to_first_do.php

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e | May 28, 2010 12:00 AM

@ Caine, Nerd, et al,

I thought that everyone knew that at creation, a man was given a brain,... and a penis,... but only enough blood to operate one at a time.

plumberbob

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 28, 2010 12:06 AM

Also, for all the Marks and Daniels out there who will insist on making this about male circumcision, here's the place for you: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/for_the_boys_with_boo-boos.php

Posted by: Mark | May 28, 2010 12:07 AM

I suppose the answer to my question is May 6, 2010 1:20 PM. I must have been busy that day.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 28, 2010 12:15 AM

Jbags:

Talk about a disproportionate response to a single line comment, christ.

It's not disproportionate at all. If you were involved in the previous threads, you'd know that. See posts #33 and #37. In a thread about a "procedure" done to females, a percentage of men could not discuss the topic, and insisted on discussing male circumcision. So, PZ created a thread about male circumcision. A good amount of posters on that thread were women, and amazingly enough, we stayed on topic, we didn't insist on making that thread be about FGM.

All we continue to ask is that in a thread which deals with females is that men stay on topic.

Posted by: DLC | May 28, 2010 12:20 AM

for you little boys whining about circumcision:
Forget the entire three-paragraph reply I was going to do, and :
1: your concern has been noted.
2: call a whaaambulance
3: go and get stuffed.

Posted by: Ben Goren | May 28, 2010 12:22 AM

May I make a suggestion? We’ve pretty emphatically established that this is not the thread for discussion of anything other than the AAP policy reversal.

So let’s all ignore anything not germane to the discussion, okay?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 28, 2010 12:24 AM

Rey Fox:

No, the hard line is the only approach to take. Say it enough times, and maybe people will start to listen.

Exactly. The only way to make such "traditions" go away is to make it absolutely clear that they are appalling and unacceptable.

Posted by: ckitching | May 28, 2010 12:37 AM

Is that traditional, or the "safe" alternative to the pure evil described above?

Yes, some of the milder ones are still "traditional". Some of them can actually be somewhat legitimately compared with male circumcision in terms of what is being removed (of course, there is still no legitimate medical reason for any form of FGM, mild or not).

Posted by: sqlrob | May 28, 2010 12:53 AM

Ultimately I think teaching people that FGM kills women and their babies is going to be a more useful approach.

I don't think so. Do you think the people that do this care about women? They're chattel to them, so what if they die.

That attitude needs to change first before your approach is possible.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | May 28, 2010 12:59 AM

As responses to #5 show, it's apparently an insult that someone would point out that male genitlia are not protected as they deserve to be (even though the lady's genitals are still protected by law in America). There mere threat to female genitals gets some pharyngulites in an uproar (as it should, but we've got some very despicable things ACTUALLY HAPPENING) while simultaneously demeaning the very real ongoing mass sexual assault on this continent.

To put this in prospective, it's like pro-lifers worrying about mothers killing their born children while giving no second thought to sending teenagers off to war in Iraq.

The first is something that rarely happens and is unsupported by society. The second is something that happens all the time and is supported by society.

Get your heads straight pharyngulites, some of you sound like raving lunatic Christians(tm) on this thread.

I fully expect an onslaught of responses, as if I just walked into a church and pissed in the holy water. When it comes to subjects like this, non-theists can be just as irrational as theists.

Why does a subject such as the appallable practise of FGM which isn't an issue in our culture automatically get to shutdown MGM which is an issue?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 28, 2010 1:06 AM

Is my drug analogy a good one?

seriously, there's no evidence for this "nicking" being necessary in the West (whether it's a good policy in countries where FGM is culturally dominant is a separate topic), where evidence suggests that treating any form of FGM and child abuse and involving child protective services when discovered has eliminated the practice among immigrants in some countries.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 28, 2010 1:07 AM

gregvalcourt:

Why does a subject such as the appallable practise of FGM which isn't an issue in our culture automatically get to shutdown MGM which is an issue?

Still blathering the same crap, I see. It doesn't shut anything down; it's simply requesting that you stay on topic. This is not about males or male circumcision. It's about females, which you seem to be unable to discuss.

Posted by: Jbags | May 28, 2010 1:12 AM

@38, 40, 41

I was unaware of the recent arguments here on the topic, so I suppose I can understand with that context! It just seemed a little OTT given the reems of text response to a one line comment and a one line post agreeing with the first ;)

I have no intention of mixing up the two issues (like Greg in #53). There's not really enough common ground between the two problems to warrant a conjoined discussion, so I suggest #53 is denied a threadjack - a sentiment I put forth in vain I suspect. Apologies.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | May 28, 2010 1:20 AM

from the Australian link @#4 (my emphasis added)

Doctors are reportedly seeing increasing cases of girls who require surgery after botched operations, which are often performed in domestic situations with razors or pieces of glass.

Posted by: Jbags | May 28, 2010 1:21 AM

@ The Proofit

Murder is illegal but it still happens! Why not legalize and control it until the practice dies out?

Some things are just always worth preventing to the best of society's ability.

The practice will or won't die out, the last thing it needs is any kind of pseudo-legitimacy gained from legalization; if anything, that will only prolong its practice.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | May 28, 2010 1:32 AM

The irony is thick here. It is okay to argue on Pharyngula why child sexual abuse is worse in the Catholic Church (and rightly so, they covered it up and are trying to place themselves above the law). But when you try to point out the male circumcision is far more common in the U.S. and Canada than female circumcision, you get raked over the coals.

Are we trying to make the place we live better? Or are we just trying to win the contest in being the most PC?

Yes female circumcision is a hideous act. Now can we admit that male circumcision is also a hideous act? We should clean up our act here before we go imposing on foreign continents. Let's set an example. All forms of genital mutilation are despicable.

I'll oppose FGM with anyone. Will they oppose MGM with me?

Posted by: Jbags | May 28, 2010 1:39 AM

@ Proofit

Absolutes still exist in a rational world - things like murder are absolutely proscribed and for good reason.

In my native UK, it is a crime to inflict "Grievous Bodily Harm" to another individual - I couldn't think of a better description of FGM.

For murder and GBH there are mitigating circumstances that might reduce the sentence, self-defense or diminished responsibility.

I can understand the damage limitation argument - the same is often said of abortion as other commenters have mentioned. However, abortion and FGM are such completely different spheres of argument, its not helpful in the least.

Just like with murder, the message has to be - this is never acceptable. I am talking, of course, of involuntary FGM on young girls who have no say in the matter. If a grown woman, free of coersion, decides she wants to undergo this abhorrent procedure, then there is more of an argument there for providing her with the safety net of modern medicine - but even then I am reticent to agree.

Posted by: Andyo | May 28, 2010 1:39 AM

OK Proofit, beating up people with a baseball bat is illegal, but it will still happen. Let's instead encourage people to beat people with nunchucks. It's less harmful and WAY cooler.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e | May 28, 2010 1:46 AM

@ gregvalcourt #65

FGM is what this thread is about. It is practiced in PATRIARCHAL societies as a form of control, mastery, oppression, and ownership of women. It is wrong. You've already been told where the MGM threads are. Go and rant there, otherwise you're a troll and will be treated as such.

plumberbob

Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre | May 28, 2010 1:55 AM

Why insults instead of arguments?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 28, 2010 1:58 AM

There IS evidence that girls in western countries are being mutilated. It happens. You don't stop it by saying that it's illegal, same as drugs.

If this point is a given, why not minimise the damage until the practice dies out?

I didn't say that it doesn't exist, but I did say that in countries where children are taken away from parents for performing FGM has actually eliminated the practice in some immigrant communities.

The difference between FGM and drugs is that one is a commodity, and is usually used by adults on themselves, whereas the other is an operation performed on children. The methods for dealing with them are completely incomparable.

and how precisely is a custom supposed to die out when it's supported and performed by mainstream medics? male circumcision isn't dying out either, for exactly the same reason.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 28, 2010 2:12 AM

It is worth remembering that the "nick" proposal was made in response to a group of East African immigrant mothers who approached physicians seeking a procedure that would keep links to traditional culture without permanently injuring their daughters. Purely on that basis, it deserves some respect - people within a particular culture were seeking to eliminate harm to their daughters. It may not be the best solution, but I actually respect the AAP for responding to the request with a "let's discuss whether this is really harm reduction" approach rather than immediate condemnation.

Education, as in the Senegal example cited above, is still the better option, but I think the AAP did not deserve (all of) the condemnation it received for the "maybe we should consider the symbolic nick" provision.

Posted by: A. Nuran | May 28, 2010 2:18 AM

gregvalcourt, it doesn't have to be all about you and your pee-pee all the time. Bugger off somewhere where people are talking about what you want to talk about. Stop threadjacking.

Posted by: Andyo | May 28, 2010 2:37 AM

As long as I oppose sharp objects near infants genitals, I'll gladly call myself a "disingenuous dumbass" according to some guy calling himself Andyo on the Internet.

You're not a disingenuous dumbass because I say so, you're so because you say shit like the above. Implying that the people attacking you aren't opposed to "sharp objects near infants genitals"? Disingenuous. Not realizing after so many threads and posts the clear point of those "attacking" you? Dumb-tastic.

Posted by: Judy L. | May 28, 2010 2:47 AM

While I don't want to appear to be thread-jacking by bringing up male circumcision, I think it's important to note that the cultural/religious reasons for male circumcision aren't the same as for FGM. FGM's purpose, no matter how conservative the procedure, is to make a girl or woman clean and chaste and aims to prevent sexual arousal, masturbation, promiscuity, lesbianism, etc., and this is supposedly acheived by harming her body. This is a human rights issue. Cultural and religious practices that violate an individual's human rights, especially when it involves their body, should not be tolerated or offered concession, full stop.

I oppose all medically unnecessary modifications to the genitals of non-consenting infants, and that includes boys, girls, and babies who are intersex.

Posted by: Judy L. | May 28, 2010 3:04 AM

#77, your mention of the "symbolic nick" makes me wonder...

Perhaps if the fathers of these girls were required to get a "symbolic nick" in the head of their penises before subjecting their daughters to having their clitorises and/or the skin around it cut into, they might decide that their daughters really do have the right to bodily integrity and physical autonomy, just like they do.

Posted by: Pondering Ape | May 28, 2010 3:36 AM

Here is one of those disturbing juxtapositions that life throws up. Just when the AAP sees sense Australian Doctors choose today to announce they are considering adopting a policy position accepting the `less severe' forms of female genital mutilation. See story link. Sorry not sure how to put the hyperlink in.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/28/2911991.htm

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 28, 2010 4:14 AM

gregvalcourt: You're an idiot. Male circumcision and FGM are different in kind, not only in degree. The former is unnecessary but relatively harmless; the latter is not just unnecessary but very painful, damaging and dangerous to the victim's long term health.

Male circumcision, and whether it's a good or bad or indifferent idea, has already been discussed here ad nauseam, and no one wants to have yet another argument about it. FGM, by contrast, is an unambiguously bad thing which all decent people should oppose, and to which we are trying to draw attention as a way of campaigning against it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2010 4:51 AM

I'm surprised at PZ on this issue. Surely the health of these young girls is more important than standing up for inflexible principles.

what galls me the most is that idiots like yourself fail to see this as one and the same.

the health of these people IS DIRECTLY related to maintaining an "inflexible principle", which is exactly fucking WHY the AAP made the initial statement, and the current revision.

*sigh*

Posted by: Andyo | May 28, 2010 5:13 AM

#88

Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre | May 28, 2010 3:38 AM

Andyo #82: at least have the common courtesy of reading my post. I already answer what you said.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 28, 2010 5:26 AM

Male circumcision might be relevant if FGM practitioners point to its prevalence and acceptance in Western societies to accuse their opponents of hypocrisy and/or justify the practice. Otherwise...

Posted by: Perspexo | May 28, 2010 6:07 AM

Well done to the AAP for rescinding their decision. And to all the threadjackers, I 'm a man, I don't agree with MGM but it's not comparable and this isn't the place for discussing it.

Posted by: Andrew Hall | May 28, 2010 7:15 AM

I think this reversal in policy by the AAP deserves a Woo-Hoo!
Woo-Hoo!
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Gaia sighs... | May 28, 2010 8:12 AM

@ 62

"...[it] ain't the same fucking ball park. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport."

Of course it isn't... that is, if you consider the pricking of female genitalia of far worse consequence than flensing the entire genital area from scrotum to waistline of males entering puberty in certain Mid East countries, or the slicing open of the entire urethra along the length of young male's penis as practiced by some Australian aborigine groups.

It's customs like these, little known but comparably atrocious, that give the lie to trivializing MGM.

But then, truths don't seem to count for much, here.

Posted by: humanizzm | May 28, 2010 8:39 AM

I cannot help but notice that they still call it genital "cutting" rather than the more honest "mutilation". Why is it so hard to realize that THAT'S what it is???

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | May 28, 2010 9:22 AM

Posted by: necronomikron | May 28, 2010 2:56 AM

Judy: It should be noted that circumcision was often touted as a 'cure' for masturbation.

Well, it clearly doesn't work ;)

I had to have it done (for medical reasons), but I don't appear to have suffered any obvious harm as a result. Now, all surgical procedures carry risks, and an unnecessay amputation for non-medical reasons strikes me as warped and absurd (maybe even more so in the cases where those having it done aren't motivated by millenia of religious indoctrination), but harm caused is (by my understanding) far, far less than for FMG, and the justification (generally) less insane or obscene. So I'm with those saying "stay on topic and stop whining".

As for the drug analogy: it just doesn't apply, IMO.

Most of the direct harm caused by drug abuse is self-infliced (and sometimes even that doesn't occur). Needle exchanges help to reduce the harm that drug abusers inflict on themselves (although IMO the greatest harm associated with drug abuse is a result of the War on Drugs itself - although I don't want to get drawn into an OT rant about that).

In comparison, FGM is completely different. It is basically a violent assault on a baby, by someone else. It is something that should be opposed absolutly. (The needle exchange analogy would only apply if FMG was already illegal, any you were proposing making clean scalpels available so that those who did it anyway were less likely to use dirty knives).

I don't see anything wrong with taking a zero-tollerance approach to cutting pieces off little girls. If that makes me "right wing", then I don't care.

(I can add it to the list of surprising labels people have applied to me on internet forums. For example, on a right-wing forum I was accused of being a "libertarian", for saying that if Chavez stopped selling oil to the US, that would not justify having him assassinated.
And on one of the BBC forums I was accused of having views that "Hitler would be proud of" for suggesting that spending £billions to replace all railway level-crossings with bridges or tunnels would be a waste of money and you could save more lives by using the money to improve hospitals and medical care in general. I also got called a "liberal do-gooder" on the same forum, although I can't remember what for.)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 28, 2010 10:21 AM

"We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world," said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.

Yes! This is it exactly! Period. No qualifiers, no hints at appeasing crazy people with substitute needless mutilations, even if on a smaller scale. This is what should have been said from the very beginning, short and sweet.

And I (and several other regulars) took a fuck-ton of shit from many people in the original thread for making the exact same point. Thankfully, the AAP came to its senses.

Ahhh... the sweet taste of vindication.

(I'm not even going to touch the whole "what about male circumcision" argument, as it's already been well covered in another thread, for those that still haven't absorbed that bit of information despite the many times it's been pointed out in this thread... ahem.)

Posted by: necronomikron | May 28, 2010 10:53 AM

@Grav:
It's not particularly effective when circumsized as an infant, however, when done at the beginning of puberty, the pain involved will keep a child from masturbating for a while, and was thought to turn them off from the idea entirely. (as well as providing less skin to use for this purpose)

Back on subject: While I can see where they were originally coming from, it doesn't mean that I agree with the stance. Sympathizing doesn't imply agreement.

While a tiny needle prick or slight incision is obviously less harmful than outright removing the entire clitoris and outer labia, it's still simply a milder form of something whose entire point is control. It doesn't grant control, in this case, but, the intent is still behind it, even if it's just following some ridiculous tradition.

As for legality... this is arguably less extreme than is done to the penis in males during circumcision, which is legal. Realistically, male circumcision won't be going away, but, we can use the stigma of FGM to do away with this barbaric practice... and should do so.

Posted by: Gaia sighs... | May 28, 2010 11:06 AM

@105
"in comparison, FGM is completely different. It is basically a violent assault on a baby, by someone else."

Your ignorance is astounding! read Geoffrey Levens' brief, descriptive "Circumcision as Ritual Initiation: What I Learned at the Hospital" (http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/circ.html) and tell me that that's not violent assault on a baby. The problem with this thread is that male denial has run rampant, with many victims of MGM availing themselves of the opportunity to add to their own denial by scoffing at the abuse they and their cohort have suffered. I find it hideously ironic that many more male commentators here have been subject to sexual mutilation than have females. Yet not a single female that I can see has displayed any empathy, let alone genuine sympathy, but instead go on to whine about "their" thread being taken over -- much like suckers who've lost the ability to think for themselves with a push of the right button, failing completely to see that the pertinent subject is Human Genital Mutilation. But then, "divide and conquer" has always worked well on fools of any gender.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | May 28, 2010 12:03 PM

@111

1. The poster at #105 was not discussing comparison of FGM and MGM, but FGM and drug use by adults.

2. No one is denying that MGM is abuse. They are saying that this thread is not the time and place to discuss it.

3. The reason for this is not because people "have no empathy", but because the rationale, effects, and wider social and cultural contexts are different for FGM and MGM. Unfortunately, whenever the topic of FGM and its specifics are brought up, the conversation gets sidetracked. We will never be able to deal with the problems specific to FGM if all we end up doing is talking about boys.

4. So please, if you want to discuss MGM, do it here, and let this thread be reserved for discussing FGM.

Posted by: CobaltSky | May 28, 2010 12:23 PM

I'd like to say that despite all the anguish in this thread, the AAP did actually make an about face on this issue: admitting fault without covering up their initial decision. That is praise-worthy in itself (even if they acted like idiots for a while). So few organisations are willing to put their hands up and actually apologise these days. We could easily been in a situation where they retained the 'symbolic nick' just out stubbornness.

I'm also wondering if those currently engaged in the meta-conversation here are aware that they appear to be guilty of breaking the rule they are purporting to enforce?

Posted by: ckitching | May 28, 2010 6:06 PM

So, I guess it's true that history repeats itself. While it's probably inevitable that circumcision will be mentioned in any FGM thread, as there are a number of parallels (both originate as a religious ritual based on a deep seated distrust about sex), but people are going too far. Frankly, I see a lot of the conduct in this thread as no different from those who complain in threads about Christian misconduct by saying, "you'd never say anything bad about teh muslims!!!"

Posted by: Andyo | May 28, 2010 8:42 PM

#116,

The first alleged thread-jacking post at #5 was made by someone who had not seen the earlier thread. The thread-jacking was caused by the decision to strawman this poster.

You don't see a problem with the attitude of #5 and the like, and the vastly disproportional comparison they're trying to make?

Again:

When do we get outraged about male genital mutilation?

Now tell me what the hell is he implying by that language.

Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing | May 29, 2010 12:17 AM

Here is an Australian poll.

Q. Should Aussie doctors introduce female circumcision to meet cultural needs of some women?

I find the wording of that question appalling.

How does mutilating little girls "meet cultural needs of" any women? And how, in the name of any hell you can imagine, would it be justified if it did?!!!

Posted by: Shuggy | May 29, 2010 4:41 AM

It is hardly threadjacking to make the comparison between male and female genital cutting, when the thread is about the AAP withdrawing support for a form of FGC that is much milder than ANY MGC. If you oppose even a minimal ritual nick to girls, it is illogical to condone the removal of much more tissue from boys. It is just no longer true to say "They are completely different".

(This does not gainsay for a moment the fact that traditional African FGC, illegal in the US, is much worse than either. But compare this Malaysian mother's blog with this American mother's. If anything the little girl seems to have got off more lightly than the little boy.)

And the Royal Dutch Medical Association has just issued a policy on male genital cutting that is much closer to the AAP's reverted 1999 policy on FGC than its current 1999 policy on MGC.