Talk:Female genital mutilation

Umm, I was wondering: I'm not an expert on this subject, but it does seem to me that there's a lot of writing out there that describes a little more carefully and without so much delving into the controversy why one would want to have his/her daughter circumcized. I guess I wonder if the current page really represents the reasons that people cut up women, which are complex, and cannot be reduced to "they believe that Islam supports the practice." This is the explanation offered on the page, and it doesn't explain why non Muslims cut their daughters, for instance, nor does it help me to understand why.

In Egypt, afaik, mothers have their daughters infibulated because they believe that it will make their daughters more desired by men. Because of limited economic opportunities for poor women, these mothers may see that marrying well is of utmost importance. They believe that a woman who is infibulated is more socially acceptable to a capable breadwinner.

Overall, I think the page could be a little bit one-sided. It doesn't speak to the reasons that people value the practice. It doesn't express understanding of their worldview.

Is there a way to describe the debate about FGM in such a way that it explains better why people have this done? In the countries where it is practiced, there is significant discussion about whether women should be "circumcized" or not. The worldview of people living in such places should be valued here.In certain places, it is accepted that women should be smooth between the legs and should be very tight when first penetrated, much as some US people believe that women should work out, starve themselves, and shave their legs.

Maybe focusing less on the debate, and more on the reasons that people in various different contexts do it would be useful. Talk about culture.

I didn't read the one on male circumcision, but I'd say that it would be incomplete if you said "people who have their babies circumcized are motivated by their interpretation of Jewish and Christian religious teachings." My parents are athiests, and I'm cut. It's just pretty much naturalized in US culture that a penis doesn't have a foreskin, hmm?

Just so you know, I'm an anthropology-oriented student, a westerner, and I like my girlfriend's parts intact, thank you very much. But I think it's important to see fgm practitioners as subjects instead of objects-- kapish?

Redirect from FGM

Can someone explain the re-direct from FGM? Although I have issues with the term FGM, it is more accurate than "circumcision" and at this point I think a more commonly-used term Slrubenstein

As expressed in the article, the term "female genital mutiliation" is more commonly used in political and social circles (particularly liberal ones, or feminist ones.) However, the factual and medical term for the process is "female circumcision," and thus is the one most applicable for an encyclopedic entry, in an attempt to maintain NPOV. Thanks for the note! -EB-

Why Circumcision and not Mutilation?

Do you have an authoritative medical reference for this? It just seems odd that (1) a nonsurgical procedure (the symbolic one mentioned at top of page) or (2) the sewing together of the labia majora would either be called circumcision.

Miriam Websters online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm) gives:

Main Entry: cir·cum·cise

                Pronunciation: 's&r-k&m-"sIz
                Function: transitive verb
                Inflected Form(s): -cised; -cis·ing
                Etymology: Middle English, from Latin
                circumcisus, past participle of
                circumcidere, from circum- + caedere to
                cut
                Date: 13th century
                : to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the
                clitoris of (a female)

So, to cut, basically. Cut off clitoris gets this label, therefore, as does cut off foreskin. But to sew? Sounds more like mutilation (a well-known term for these things).

Besides, medical definitions have no greater priority in an encyclopedia than do cultural definitions. I think we might want to create two pages that interlink:

           Female circumcision
           Female genital mutilation.

Both belong here, don't you think? Maybe not, but makes sense to me right now.

Arthur Jan 15, 2003 20:02 UTC

FGM and MGM

One of the reasons that the term FGM came into vogue about 20 or 30 years ago is that the newer term was thought to more accuractly refleft the barbarity of the operation and assist in attempts to exterminate it by contrasting it with male circumcision which, at the time "FGM" became popular, was generally regarded as a trivial or even beneficial procedure. The move to FGM in itself, however, is problematic insofar as it, in turn, trivialises mutilation of the male organ - mere "circucision" as oposed to "mutilation". This is why many people in the field now write "male genital mutilation" or MGM. Tannin

More on MGM

I agree with Tannin's views. I'm disappointed that male genital mutilation is so easily dismissed (as are many abuses of males). Still, I would like to see female genital mutilation (in my opinion, so much nastier than male circumcision) be given a clear category in this encyclopedia.

Anyone agree? Arthur Jan 15, 2003 04:54 UTC

I agree, but only subject to the priviso that males and females be treated equally - i.e., "Male Circumcision" and "Female Circumcision" or "MGM" and "FGM". The assertion that female GM is nastier than male GM cannot be made broadly. There are forms of FGM which are very common (especially in SE Asia) that are undoubtedly milder than the normal extent of MGM, and there are (better publicised) forms that are undoubtedly much more severe, with a whole range of variations in between. FGM, in other words, can be much nastier, but can equally be as mild or substantially milder than male circumcision: FGM has a much greater variability. Both operations, however, remove sexual tissue from non-consenting minors, and both should be treated equally. Tannin

I strongly disagree:

Both male and female circumcision are terrible. I see feminists trying to get special dispensation by comparing the most extreme forms of female circumcision against the most benign forms of male circumcision. I shall give examples:

Asiatic eunuchs have a straw shoved up the urethra and the then a the castrator ties a ligature around the base of the penis and testicles so tightly that the penis and testicles turn black. Then the castrator cuts of the penis and testicles. The reason for the straw is to hold open the urethra.

Male circumcision varies from forms which remove only the part of the præpuce extending past the glans or dorsal slits. Then one finds complete præpucectomy. Then one finds præpucectomy with frænectomy. Then one finds præpucectomy with frænectomy and subincision. Finally, one finds penectomy.

Female circumcision varies from minor cuts on the genitals to infibulation.

The range of FGM and MGM mostly overlap and it is hard to tell which on average is better or worse or which destructive extreme is more destructive or which benign extreme is more benign.

The facts are that the culture with FGM are a subset of cultures with MGM, and the percentage of girls falling victim to FGM in these cultures is lower than the percentage of boys falling victim to MGM.

If we wish to eliminate FGM, we should eliminate MGM. If we stop FGM without eliminating MGM, FGM will just reappear on the justification that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we eliminate MGM, FGM will follow because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I do not see any reason we should have two articles for sexual genital mutilation. I believe that we should have just one article covering sexual genital mutilation both males and females. The International Coalition for Genital Integrity does not distinguish between sexual genital mutilation of either boys or girls of intersexuals. You can read the article about Genital Integrity.

Ŭalabio 04:33, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

It is mutilation

"medical definitions have no greater priority in an encyclopedia than do cultural definitions"? That's not right at all. I agree that it really is mutilation, but the medical definition could be used as it's a medical procedure dealing with the human body. Besides, our culture loves britney spears, do we really want those people creating medical terms?

MarcusAurelius

It should be FGM

My point was that medicine has no special knowledge of this stuff and that genital mutilation is not primarily a medical issue. Genital mutilation has a clear and recognized (though evolving) meaning as a cultural phenomenon (actually as several cultural phenomena). Few M.D.s know anything about anthropology, sociology, psychology and the like--nor how genital mutilation evolved culturally nor what kind of psychological or cultural effects it might have. Let M.D.s define emphysema. M.D.s have amongst the most narrow of educations and have no expertise whatsoever on other stuff. Want the AMA (American Medical Association) to define marriage or punk rock? I still think this should be moved back to Female genital mutilation (or to a general genital mutilation page that discusses both male and female.

Arthur

Funny

not to sound too insensitive, but the whole idea is kinda funny apart from the sadistic butchering. I see a group of men 4000 years ago talking about their wives complaining that they had no idea what they should do to her clit, and they were all like, i have no idea what to do with it either. fuck it, let's just chop it off so we don't gotta worry about it anymore.

MarcusAurelius

Let's be open

What I find bizarre is how we're moving toward usng both the terms FGM and MGM. That's fine. Let's be open that this is a permanent medical procedure that is performed upon infants without consent. Yet at the same time, adult mutilation (genital and otherwise) is a rapidly growing trend. In fact, people got VERY huffy at me when I suggested on the talk page for body piercing / modification that it was in fact mutilation. -- Tarquin 13:34 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Have a look at this page http://www.geocities.com/hoodectomy/hoodectomy.html

Ericd

I'd rather not, I'm about to have lunch -- Tarquin

Map source?

Where does the map come from ? Is it up to date ? It show 50-75 % in Burkina Faso where FGM where forbidden around 1986. Ericd

Click on the map; the description page includes a link to the apparent source, which itself is very vague about the data. --Brion 00:52 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

There is an errata at : http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a3 Is it the same map ? Ericd

Other source : http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/stats.html Ericd

FGM more appropriate

and, for now, my last comment about redirecting this back to "Female Genital Mutilation", I just did two searches at the altavista search engine. The number of hits?

female circumcision--13,954

female genital mutilation--24,180

Is it not clear which term has the greatest recognition?

Is it the same ? IMHO clitoridectomy or infibulation is obviously mutilation. But excision ? effects on sexual arousal are highly debatable.

What if you call male circumcision "male genital mutilation" ? Ericd

Hi Ericd!

my major point (see my rudely italicized argument above) is that medicine is the most ignorant of disciplines when it comes to all of this. And so, I prefer to talk in real terms rather than medical terms. Male circumcision (a medical term) is really nothing other than Male Genital Mutilation (I'm circumcised myself, and it looks normal to me and [according to polls] to most women in the USA, but it's mutilation nevertheless and serves no useful medical function). Who cares what M.D.s think about cultural phenomena? (Don't get me wrong. If I have a health problem, I want an M.D. and nothing but an M.D.--I want a fully trained traditional medicine medical doctor, not some bogus pseudoscience "health practioner".) Excision is unarguably mutilation--in one person's opinion

Terminology Parity

Someone above just wrote: Excision is unarguably "mutilation" --in one person's opinion. Actually this is quite wrong. Excision (of the foreskin or any other part) is mutilation by definition. The Oxford, for example, defines "mutilate" as "to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or organ of the body." Excision is unarguably "mutilation": no qualifier is required.

Male and female circumsision, or FGM and MGM. I'm not going to argue for either pair of alternatives, but they must be properly equivalent. Tannin

I think it's stupid to demand this kind of parity. It's certainly true that there are varieties of FGM that are as mild as male circumcision, but it is not true that there are varieties of male circumcision as extreme as FGM can be. We wouldn't call chopping off the head of a man's penis "circumcision", so it's ridiculous and insulting to use that term for an equivalent operation on a woman. - Montréalais

There are variants of FGM - quite possibly amongst the most common ones of all, given the population of SE Asia - that are much milder than male circumcision, Montrealais. Circumcision removes between 30% and 50% of a male's erogenous tissue. Regarding that as trivial is a gross perversion of common sense, and using a different, milder, term to sanitise equivalent acts simply because the victim of one happens to belong to a different sex is absurd, offensive, and highly POV. Tannin

That would be more cogent if it responded to any position I had claimed to hold. I never said that male circumcision wasn't severe, because I don't believe it's not. What I said was that FGM can be much more severe. - Montréalais

Or much less severe. Tannin

FGM covered under Blue Cross/Blue Sheild

Hi-- Can someone provide a citation for this line in the article: "clitoridectomy was covered by Bllue Cross/Blue Shield until 1974"? Thanks. --Marty Klein, Ph.D [email protected]

I remember to have read some old medical book citation recommending clitoridectomy. I'll try to verify. Ericd 22:37 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have a source and serious one : http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm Ericd 22:41 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's a good source; however it doesn't cover the material in question. Nowhere in this source is the U.S. (let alone Blue Cross/Blue Shield) mentioned; it says there were debates about efficacy against masturbation (in Britain) but never says the operation was actually carried out for this purpose. - Hephaestos 07:30 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Let's quote amnesty.org : "Ideas about the health benefits of FGM are not unique to Africa. In 19th Century England, there were debates as to whether clitoridectomy could cure women of "illnesses" such as hysteria and "excessive" masturbation. Clitoridectomy continued to be practised for these reasons until well into this century in the USA." Ericd 07:59 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well you're right. Thank you. - Hephaestos 08:15 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've found another one for Blue Cross : http://www.boystoo.com/insurance.htm

Ericd 08:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cliterodectomy

I am confused. Is "cliterodectomy" the removal of the clitoral hood only, as implied in its first mention in this article, or the removal of "part of all of the clitoris," as stated in the "Type II" section? - Nahum 08:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oops. One is with an e and the other with an o. Sorry :) Nahum 08:41 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Controversial claim

I dispute the accuracy of the recent addition:

Interestingly, the operation is most often carried out by woman practitioners. Thus it has been attributed by some authors to a deep-rooted fear of elder women that the more attractive younger women might seduce away their husbands and thus leave them without support.

From my research, I haven't uncovered any such argument or "fear." While I have found that it is often carried out by women (often "gypsies"), I haven't found any evidence that older women are afraid that the younger "intact" women will lure aware their spouses. This claim is even more dubious since it is usually the men who want the procedure carried out, horrific as it is. If the older women were trying to keep their husbands, it seems they'd have more luck by not performing the procedure on the younger women. If other agree that this claim is dubious, I'll remove it in the next few days. Please post your views. —Frecklefoot 15:33, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Without some support, I say remove it and leave it in the Talk page. If there is a credible, specific author promoting this theory who can be identified, it can stay, though if there's dispute this should be added too. Dachshund 05:13, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

United States

It was also practiced in the United States to prevent masturbation until well into the twentieth century.

This sentence, cut from the intro paragraph, is not supported anywhere in the body of the article. Our readers would surely love to know more about this, especially considering that now the West condemns Arabs in Northern Africa for doing it.

Please provide a link or other evidence for "practiced in the US well into the 20th century". (I know female masturbation was discouraged, the question is whether girls actually had their clits cut off.) --Uncle Ed 22:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, there is no dispute about that, Ed. It wasn't common, but it was undoubtedly practiced by the medical profession. This is well-known. Tannin

I'm not so sure about the "to prevent masturbation" part. (I am generally not all that well versed in the topic). But I found the links at the bottowm of this page to be fascinating. A paper entitled "Female Circumcision: Indications and a New Technique" from 1959 is presented, and one from 1915 titled "Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It". I will re-add the sentece, but without the masturbation motivation bit. I'll also ask Anthere for her comments as she seems knowledgeable about the subject. (google is your friend). --snoyes 22:38, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've already restored it, the evidence (including for the motivation) is in the linked article, maybe it should be merged into masturbation.—Eloquence

Don't mix excision and female circumcision, they are very different. Excision was not an accepted medical practice in the US or Britain. User:Damas

Western Civilization???

It's not easy to count the places where FGM is forbidden(no, it's not Western Civilization, it's more like 90% of the world): North and South America, Europe (all of it, last time I've checked, including Russia and former soviet republics), China, India, Japan and the list might continue. But we have a short list of the places that practice it: Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Yemen. User:Damas

It's forbidden in Burkina Faso. This doesn't mean it isn't practiced, there were even case in France.

Ericd 22:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tori Amos

This page claims that Tori Amos's song "Cornflake Girl" deals with FGM. Is there some evidence for this? It certainly isn't explicitly mentioned in the lyrics, and I personally don't understand the sous-entendu referred to here. - Montréalais 06:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This wasn't obvious to me too. Then I asked Google and found : http://www.white-man-killer.com/tori-amos/about.html Ericd 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again on terminology

I'm certainly not the first one to voice my concerns over the name of this entry, but it bears repeating. The practice of male circumcision is by all standards incomparable to what passes for "female circumcision". It is stigmatising and insulting to cultures that practice male circumcision; there are very few medical and/or sociological parallels between the two practices. Can anyone suggest a third - non-PC and non-stigmatising - term for this phenomenon? If not, what are the real reasons for not moving this page to female genital mutilation? JFW | T@lk 22:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MGM and FGM are simmilar practices with several both medical, historical and sociological parallels between them. // Liftarn

The simple reason, JFW, is that it would get reverted instantly. It is entirely unacceptable to call the removal of genital flesh "circumcision" as it applies to one sex, but "mutilation" as it applies to the other. By all means, move this to female genital mutilation - but only, repeat only if you do the same with the male entry. Your claim that "the practice of male circumcision is by all standards incomparable to what passes for female circumcision" is nonsense. Oh sure, there are forms of FGM that remove more sexually sensitive tissue than the common forms of MGM, but there are also forms which remove a good deal less (these are particularly common in South-east Asia). Tannin

Dear //Liftarn and Tannin—
I appreciate that some people prefer to refer to male circumcision as MGM. Most people, including professionals in the field, however, call it "circumcision", nothing more or less. As for FGM, most people, especially professionals (doctors, psychotherapists, sociologists, community care workers, development workers) who deal with the women involved, call it FGM, although the parlance in the media is "female circumcision". As for the similarities: (1) Both are surgical interventions of the genitals that are practiced as an initiation rite more than for medical reasons; (2) A proportion of the "circumcised" is unhappy about what was done to him/her and experiences sexual dysphoria, obstetric complications and post-traumatic stress disorder. As for the differences: (1) The "proportion in (2) above is overwhelmingly larger in female circumcision; (2) There is ample evidence that male circumcision has a very low complication rate and a very low rate of sexual dysphoria and PTSS; (3) The international community condemns female circumcision while no such thing has been done concerning its male "counterpart". //Liftarn, could you please cite me serious studies from peer-reviewed professional journals concerning medical similarities between the two? JFW | T@lk 10:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
PS Tannin—I didn't know female circumcision was also practiced in SE Asia! About Iraq I've heard second-hand from a doctor who worked there. Perhaps there is room for a Talmudic logical split: some practices (e.g. Sudan) are FGM, and some are so mild they are quite similar to male circumcision and warrant being called "female circumcision". Just a thought....

This article brings me in some readings and reflexions that I will try to sum up.

First of it I think than there’s a strong parallels between male & female circumcision, for what I know, many African cultures practice both and gave the same justification for both.

At first I wanted to move all the article to FGM. I was conviced like you that Female circumcision was incomparable with male circumcision.

Futher readings bring me to thing that hoodectomy is no more than female counterpart of male circumcision. I had also the surprise to discover that some women undergo hoodectomy for aesthetic reasons or for better sexual arousal. Living in a society were body modification (plastic surgery, piercing) is more and more common and where male circumcision can be practiced as ritual on childrens, I tend to think now that hoodectomy in itself is no more condemnable than male circumcision.

It hadn’t of course changed my POV on other types of female circumcision that are still IMO strongly condemnable.

Another aspect is that the practice of hoodectomy is a serious health problem. As it is practised in unhygienic conditions in many third world countries complication are frequents. In most of this countries male circumcision is also practised and complications are also frequent, but as the male body is not the female body when things turn bad they tend to go worse for women.

For what I know best some African countries have strong policies about FGM. In some countries female circumcision is illegal but goes on in clandestiny, in other countries female circumcision is medicalized and restrictited to hoodectomy, this generally condemned in Wester opinion, but it seems to me that it’s similar to way we deal with male circumcision in Western countries.

Ericd 11:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eric, I'm not sure what your stance is on the circumcision/FGM debate? Could you state your views? Or was this a seperate comment? JFW | T@lk 15:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fixed several typos this should be clearer now I am for keeping the Female circumcision tittle for this article, this doesn't exclude to make the FGM article something more than a redirect.

Ericd 15:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"It has only rarely been performed in the English-speaking nations."

So this is a language issue? I don't know the facts, but I'm sure it should be possible to describe the affected regions more accurately...

I'd suggest perhaps first world or industrialized nations, as that's what the author seems to mean. I'm sure that countries like Germany and Japan don't have a particular problem with this, even though they're not English-speaking. However, I'm not going to change it just now, I'll leave it up to debate.

--Tyler 08:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are Ghana or Nigeria English-speaking nations ?

Ericd 11:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nigeria's official language is English, and almost everyone I met there can speak and understand it. Of course, people speak many other languages besides; the street pidgin is often contemptously referred to as "broken English," though that hasn't stopped a single soul from using it. :-) --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 01:18, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Male Genital Mutilation

The page Female genital mutilation redirects to Female circumcision so I tried to create a redirect from Male Genital Mutilation to Male circumcision, and within a few seconds it had been put on the Redirects for deletion page. I agree that some forms of FGM are far worse than the standard male circumcision and I don't want to play down the severity of that. Although I think that MGM can include mutilation other than circumcision or very barbaric forms of circumcision aswell (eg. skinstripping and subincision see [1] and #More on MGM) although I'm not sure how widespread this is. However, it seems that many people consider even the mildest form of FGM as mutilation eg. the US Department of State who say that "Type I is the excision (removal) of the clitoral hood with or without removal of all or part of the clitoris" [2]. It seems strange that the US government is taking such an interest in FGM in other countries but seems to be blind to the Genital Mutilation of boys taking place on its own doorstep.--Cap 00:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

¿Why not just merge FGM, MGM, Female Circumcision, Male Circumcision, and Circumcision into one article? It is all the same thing. Just read my comment at #More on MGM on this page.

Ŭalabio 04:46, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

There is a page called Genital modification and mutilation --Cap 04:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

¡Good! We can merge and redirect MGM, FGM, Male Circumcision, Female Circumcision, and Circumcision into Genital Modification And Mutilation.

Ŭalabio 05:53, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Male circumcision, Female circumcision, and Genital modification and mutilation should all remain separate articles. -- DanBlackham 06:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

¿Why not redirect and merge? These are all of the same thing.

Ŭalabio 07:31, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

No, they are not. Ŭalabio, I am rather displeased that after all this time, you still fail to acknowledge this — I thought that you might be more open to reason than Robert Brookes. Don't you remember my comment at Talk:Violence a few days ago? To quote myself:

Your opponents don't lump male and female circumcision in the same box, so take care to treat them separately.

I'm not pro- or anti-circumcision, but even I know that "MGM" and "FGM" are two different animals. You may not like the fact that most other people see things differently than you do, but that changes nothing.
Can you see the POV that a redirect of Male circumcision and/or Female circumcision to Genital modification and mutilation would add? Given the recent arguments over the circumcision wars and the non-negotiable nature of the neutral point of view policy, the only reason I can figure that you're even bothering to propose this is to start another pointless argument. --Ardonik.talk() 11:38, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

¿How are they different animals? Let us compare withtext copied from elsewhere on the page: