Egypt outlaws all female circumcision.
My one quibble with the article is the terminology. Destruction and removal of the clitoris is nothing like removal of the foreskin, which is why the preferred term is “female genital mutiliation” or FGM.
Egypt outlaws all female circumcision.
My one quibble with the article is the terminology. Destruction and removal of the clitoris is nothing like removal of the foreskin, which is why the preferred term is “female genital mutiliation” or FGM.
link not working
Destruction and removal of the clitoris is nothing like removal of the foreskin…
Destruction and removal of the clitoris is also not the only form of FGM. Other forms are indeed exactly like the removal of the foreskin. A subset of those is less destructive than male circumcision.
My issue here isn’t whether we should stop this evil act perpetuated against females. We should, wherever it occurs. But we should try to stop the evil act of medically unnecessary genital cutting performed on any child (or adult) who doesn’t consent. Medically unnecessary genital cutting is still medically unnecessary and destructive, whether it occurs on a female or a male.
So, I agree with your quibble. The article should say female genital mutilation, not female circumcision. But the solution isn’t to minimize male genital mutilation. They can both be morally wrong, even though it’s true that almost every female who has her genitals cut suffers far more damage than a male who has his genitals cut.
- Tony
You’re right that mutilation is mutilation and should be recognized as such in all its forms.
I was referring more to the use of the term “female circumcision” in the U.S., where male circumcision is considered by most people to be a safe and routine minor procedure (whether that’s true is very much up for debate, as you say), and where most people have no idea what FGM is, let alone the extreme forms it can take.
I apologize if I made it sound as though male circumcision was no big deal. But at least there is some medical evidence that there is a benefit to men (although I’m not certain the benefits outweigh the risks); with women, there is no medical benefit to FGM that I’m aware of.
At least we’re moving in the right direction?
No need to apologize. You’re right that most Americans read “circumcision” and think no big deal. Most are keenly aware when you put “female” in there, though. What concerns me is that many Americans are aware of the extreme forms of FGM, but wrongly believe that those are the only forms. They’re not. It doesn’t make the less extreme form acceptable, but denial of the similarities is not intellectually fair. Too many people want to see what is an illegitimate gender distinction in medically unnecessary, clearly harmful genital cutting of individuals who can’t or don’t consent. The difference between FGM and MGM is like murder versus assault, not murder versus a handshake. There’s a reason to prohibit both.
Obviously I’m against infant male circumcision. I don’t need to deny the potential medical benefits, but my concern is that we miss the ethical issues in male genital cutting, which are the same as female genital cutting. That’s why I commented. If we’re going on medical benefits, out of context*, we could justify a lot of surgeries that we correctly don’t condone.
Would we allow FGM in order to investigate whether or not there are medical benefits? Nope, because we recognize it as unethical. We have a history that violated those ethics to inform us that cutting male infants might, sometimes, protect the child. Usually from something that can be treated with a less-invasive method. As long as we don’t question that, it will continue. We don’t have that tradition with females.
But there is some conflicting evidence that cutting the genitals of females might reduce HIV risk. (The link is from Google Cache because the link isn’t working.) I doubt the finding would hold up, but would it be reasonable to investigate more? I say definitively no, as would most intelligent people. I’m just interested in pointing out that there shouldn’t be a gender disparity in ethics when it comes to genital cutting.
Ack, have I over-explained enough? Ultimately, I agree with you. We’re moving in the right direction.
* A 50% reduced risk of HIV is not as significant when the risk of female-to-male transmission is already tiny. A 50% reduction of a 1% risk is hardly compelling the way a 50% reduction of a 50% risk would be. The U.S., at least, is roughly that 1%. And that’s from a male having unprotected sex with an HIV+ female.
About bloody time….