Exclusive: health professionals, survivors and politicians voice concerns in open letter over comments by Fatima Maada Bio, who denies supporting the practice
FGM harms women’s physical and emotional health throughout their lives.[62][63] It has no known health benefits.[11]
There is no valid justification for FGM, cultural or otherwise. I do not care about comparisons to male circumcision. I do not care about the concerns of cultural relativism.
It is a brutal practice performed by barbaric people butchering women in a soulless, sinister, deeply cynical, and horrifically ignorant crime against humanity.
Bear the descriptions in the article at your own discretion.
I agree. Though I also think male circumcision of newborns should be banned. Not as a comparison, but simply because its a surgery with no benefit and measurable harm performed on people unable to consent. Just stop mutilating people.
I give zero fucks that someone’s imaginary friend told them it is necessary.
Both are born out of ancient ideals of purity and control over sexuality (the latter being especially applicable to FGM).
Male circumcision started because ancient humans viewed the human body as a canvas for social engineering. It survived and flourished because it successfully forged fierce tribal loyalty, distinct cultural boundaries, and deep religious identity. It was later justified as a way to curb masturbation.
FGM, in ancient stratified societies, including Egypt and Rome, became a prerequisite for marriage. It signified a woman’s obedience, purity, and readiness to join a household. In several cultures, an uncut woman was deemed “unclean” and socially ostracized, making her unmarriageable.
The foundational justification in almost all practicing cultures was to reduce a woman’s libido. By removing sensitive tissue, societies sought to ensure a girl remained a virgin until marriage and faithful to her husband afterward.
Both practices are a type of mutilation in my opinion but one is not referred to that way due to cultural relativism. I’m glad to come from a part of the world where neither is or ever was the norm.
Not necessarily, at least with regards to historical justifications of male circumcision. For example, desert cultures that had extremely limited chances for things like baths experienced high rates of infection that circumcision notably reduced. And with a high rate of phimosis, the choice between infant circumcision (with lower blood loss, faster healing times and lower rates of complications) and teenage+ circumcision (with worse healing and a higher rate of complications). If 1/3 of your boys and men have to undergo circumcision for medical reasons, is it not better to do it when its the quickest to heal?
Even now, there is significant evidence that male circumcision reduces the chances of HIV (and other STD) transfer in susceptible populations, so circumcision in at risk populations is the common medical recommendation.
I in no way support circumcision as a routine religious/cultural practice, but when there are times and places and societies where it is a genuine harm reduction technique, and throwing those babies out with that bathwater isn’t really helpful, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
There is no valid justification for FGM, cultural or otherwise. I do not care about comparisons to male circumcision. I do not care about the concerns of cultural relativism.
It is a brutal practice performed by barbaric people butchering women in a soulless, sinister, deeply cynical, and horrifically ignorant crime against humanity.
Bear the descriptions in the article at your own discretion.
I agree. Though I also think male circumcision of newborns should be banned. Not as a comparison, but simply because its a surgery with no benefit and measurable harm performed on people unable to consent. Just stop mutilating people.
I give zero fucks that someone’s imaginary friend told them it is necessary.
Both are born out of ancient ideals of purity and control over sexuality (the latter being especially applicable to FGM).
Male circumcision started because ancient humans viewed the human body as a canvas for social engineering. It survived and flourished because it successfully forged fierce tribal loyalty, distinct cultural boundaries, and deep religious identity. It was later justified as a way to curb masturbation.
FGM, in ancient stratified societies, including Egypt and Rome, became a prerequisite for marriage. It signified a woman’s obedience, purity, and readiness to join a household. In several cultures, an uncut woman was deemed “unclean” and socially ostracized, making her unmarriageable.
The foundational justification in almost all practicing cultures was to reduce a woman’s libido. By removing sensitive tissue, societies sought to ensure a girl remained a virgin until marriage and faithful to her husband afterward.
Both practices are a type of mutilation in my opinion but one is not referred to that way due to cultural relativism. I’m glad to come from a part of the world where neither is or ever was the norm.
Not necessarily, at least with regards to historical justifications of male circumcision. For example, desert cultures that had extremely limited chances for things like baths experienced high rates of infection that circumcision notably reduced. And with a high rate of phimosis, the choice between infant circumcision (with lower blood loss, faster healing times and lower rates of complications) and teenage+ circumcision (with worse healing and a higher rate of complications). If 1/3 of your boys and men have to undergo circumcision for medical reasons, is it not better to do it when its the quickest to heal?
Even now, there is significant evidence that male circumcision reduces the chances of HIV (and other STD) transfer in susceptible populations, so circumcision in at risk populations is the common medical recommendation.
I in no way support circumcision as a routine religious/cultural practice, but when there are times and places and societies where it is a genuine harm reduction technique, and throwing those babies out with that bathwater isn’t really helpful, either.
There is no evidence of causation