This is an example of how horrible cultural practices are excused—or made to seem less harmful—by “progressives” (read “the woke”) when they’re characteristic of minority groups. In this case the practice is one of the cruelest and most misogynistic forms of behavior around—female genital mutilation (FGM), especially in its most damaging form, infibulation (there are three forms of FGM; see below). I
This issue came to my mind when I saw this tweet:
The ‘decolonising’ of FGM continues apace
“we adopt the more neutral expression ‘female genital practices’ throughout this paper. This term allows us to refer inclusively and descriptively to a diverse set of practices without prejudging their ethical, medical or cultural…
— Róisín Michaux (@RoisinMichaux) December 13, 2025
Here’s the article in the Times of London referred to in the tweet; click to read.
And that led me to an essay in the Journal of Medical Ethics (below) highlighted in the above article.
The Times article above seems toi me a pretty accurate characterization of the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) article, though a bit hyperbolic:
Laws that ban female genital mutilation (FGM) are harmful and “stigmatising” towards migrant communities, academics have claimed in a British Medical Journal publication.
The essay argues that criticism of FGM, which involves cutting or removing females’ genitals for non-medical reasons, is “sensationalist” and based on “racialised stereotypes”.
It draws an equivalence between FGM in Africa and a trend for cosmetic genital procedures in the UK and US whereby women undergo surgery to create a “designer vagina”.
The article was published in the BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics, and its 25 co-authors include academics at the University of Cambridge, the University of Bristol and Brighton and Sussex Medical School.
FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, but remains commonplace in areas of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, with the highest prevalence in Somalia.
It can cause severe pain, harm and long-term health problems, and organisations including the United Nations support bans and recognise it as a violation of women and girls’ human rights.
However, the article suggests that laws that ban FGM, including in the UK, are “causing harms to people” and can “objectify girls and women as passive victims”.
It says: “Laws against ‘FGM’ in Western countries have resulted in the marginalisation of migrant communities, reinforcing exclusionary practices and contributing to their social stigmatisation. While intended to protect, such legislation can serve as a tool of exclusion, deepening the divide between these communities and the broader society.”
The article claims that critics of FGM “ignore similar practices that have long been customary in powerful countries of the Global North”. It compares FGM to a rare type of cosmetic surgery called labiaplasty, which is offered by surgeons in Western nations.
Now if you read the original article below, you’ll see that though the authors admit here and there that female genital mutilation is harmful, their purpose is really to rename it, as “female genital modification as well as to reduce bigotry against cultures that practice FGM.
This authors argue that conflating FGM with other forms of genital surgery, such as that performed on transgender males or females in the “Global North” causes confusion and confused social policy. They also say it leads to discrimination against people who practice it in their native countries in the “Global South”, like Somalia, but after those people immigrate to the “Global North”. Yes, they do say FGM is harmful, but so are these other surgeries, including circumcision. But the article’s real result, I think, is to de-stigmatize the practice as a whole when the authors try reduce discrimination against cultures that practice FGM in their native lands.
A few quotes from the essay above:
One might also point to the tyranny of ‘types’ promulgated by the standard tale. Despite being the least common, infibulation (the sewing together of the outer labia, type 3) has come to stand for all forms of female genital practices in the popular imagination. Thus, communities that practise other forms, such as some Shia Muslims, who reportedly excise a small amount of skin from a girl’s prepuce, the so-called clitoral hood, as a religious duty and rite of inclusion, are immediately deemed ‘mutilators’.35 While some Shia and some Sunni Muslims argue that a notion of gender equality underlies the practice—in communities where both boys and girls undergo ritual circumcision—the use of the term ‘mutilation’ shuts down meaningful dialogue.
In contrast, boys who undergo circumcision, whether performed by so-called traditional operators or medically trained personnel, are rarely considered victims of mutilation, and the various forms of male genital practices—some as altering as infibulation—elude equivalent scrutiny.
. . . . Recent quantitative and qualitative research reveals that affected migrants who expect a permanent future in the Global North overwhelmingly opt to stop their cultural or religious female genital practices. Nevertheless, the belief persists that migrants are committed to preserving these traditions, and stories of ‘FGM’ practices after immigration abound in public discourse and news reporting, despite a lack of evidence, and indeed evidence to the contrary. Such misrepresentation and stereotyping fuel suspicion towards minority communities and families, resulting in harmful consequences for the girls and families involved.
, , ,We have written this critique to expand that conversation. Over the past four decades, great damage has been done to the process of rational policy formation by misleading and sensational media coverage of affected women from practising communities in the Global South. In concert with anti-FGM activist organisations, mainstream newspapers in North America, Europe and Australia have firmly fixed in the minds of their readers a typifying ‘dark continent’ ‘female genital mutilation’ image based on the atypical practice of infibulation, which should not be confused with the far more common forms of female genital practices that continue to prevail in many African and South-East Asian societies, and which are gaining in popularity among cosmetic surgeons and majority populations in North America and Europe (although never under the label ‘genital mutilation’—the expression ‘designer vagina’ is sometimes used).
Additionally, while reading the mainstream media coverage of ‘FGM’, one would never know that the custom does not selectively pick on women. Almost without exception, wherever there are female genital modifications, the local social norms regarding genital alteration are gender inclusive or gender equal and approvingly call for male genital modifications as well. Political patriarchy may have rather little to do with it.
Now FGM is illegal everywhere in the “Global North”, and this article says that the practice here is very rare. There are actually three main types of FGM as classified by WHO. All are harmful, and I list them below. First, though, is the practice really rare in the “Global North”? It’s very hard to find data as cases are, for obvious reasons, not often reported. I first consulted ChatGPT, whose data must of course be taken with a grain of salt. But it does give references, a few of which I’ve checked to see if they say what they’re alleged to say; the ones I’ve checked do. I also add below a link from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has founded an anti-FGM organization (she was a victim) and she gives statistics as well.
First, from the bot, when I asked it “how common is female genital mutilation in the West”?
Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is much less common in Western countries than in the regions where the practice has traditionally been concentrated (mainly parts of Africa, the Middle East, and some countries in Asia), but it does occur in the West — largely within migrant and diaspora communities from countries where FGM is prevalent. World Health Organization+1
Here’s an overview of how common it is in the West:
📊 General Western Prevalence
Overall Western prevalence is low compared with high-prevalence countries in Africa or the Middle East. In most Western populations, FGM is very rare or nearly absent overall, and national prevalence rates are typically well below 2 % of the general female population. However, estimates can vary based on methods and data limitations. Political Islam Center
🇪🇺 Europe
At least ~600,000 women and girls residing in European countries are estimated to have undergone FGM, with an additional ~130,000–190,000 girls and women at risk in some European Union countries. FGM/C Research Initiative
The largest numbers of FGM survivors in Europe are found in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. FGM/C Research Initiative
Because most European countries do not collect comprehensive health data on FGM, these figures are estimates drawn from community surveys, health systems data, and extrapolations. End FGM
🇺🇸 United States
Estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of women and girls in the U.S. either have undergone FGM or are at risk, mostly because they or their parents come from countries where the practice is common. PRB
For example, one estimate identified over 500,000 women and girls at risk or already cut based on countries of origin with high FGM prevalence. Political Islam Center
🇨🇦 Canada and Other Western Countries
Canada and other Western nations also report thousands of women and girls who have undergone FGM, again primarily within immigrant communities. For example, the CSPII FGM Index estimated Canadian prevalence at around 0.47 % of the female population — substantially lower than in high-prevalence countries. Political Islam Center
🧠 What This Means
In the general Western population, FGM prevalence is very low because the practice is not part of mainstream Western culture or norms.
Most cases in Western countries occur in migrant communities from regions where FGM is traditionally practiced.
Due to legal bans and active public health and human rights efforts, Western countries also focus heavily on prevention and protection to reduce incidence.
In the Anchorage Daily News, Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes what’s indented blow, making claims about people living with FGM in the U.S. It’s not clear how often the mutilation was done before immigration, but I suspect that a lot of it is done in America, especially because you don’t have to have it done by a doctor. See below.
. . . . Alaska is one of nine states without a specific FGM ban, and the costs of that inaction are real. According to a groundbreaking study published by AHA Foundation in 2023, 10,020 women and girls in the Western United States have ancestral ties to countries where FGM is practiced. Of these, approximately 2,780 are at high risk of being cut or already living with FGM and 750 are living with Type III FGM, the most severe form, in which the genital area is sewn almost completely closed. A significant percentage (23.2%) of the Type III FGM population is living in Alaska. These survivors face chronic pain, complications during childbirth and lifelong trauma — often without access to medical care or emotional support.
Perhaps I should have put what follows up first, but here are the four types of FGM classified by The World Health Organization (WHO). Hirsi Ali refers above to three forms; she’s talking about the first three.
The World Health Organization (WHO) classified FGM into four broad categories in 1995 and again in 2007:
Type I: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce.
Type II: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora.
Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice by cutting and bringing together the labia minora and/or the labia majora to create a type of seal, with or without excision of the clitoris. In most instances, the cut edges of the labia are stitched together, which is referred to as ‘infibulation’.
Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.
FGM is condemned by a number of international treaties and conventions, as well as by national legislation in many countries. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being,” and this statement has been used to argue that FGM violates the right to health and bodily integrity. With FGM considered as a form of violence against women, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women can be invoked. Similarly, defining it as a form of torture brings it under the rubric of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Moreover, since FGM is regarded as a traditional practice prejudicial to the health of children and is, in most cases, performed on minors, it violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. An interagency statement on FGM, issued by 10 UN organizations, was issued in 2008.
Now all are harmful, and the first two either completely remove or considerably diminish the possibility of any sexual pleasure, which is one of the reasons they’re done. So all three are harmful.
What about circumcision? I’ll leave that aside for this post as it’s not as harmful as these forms of FGM, and isn’t banned. But many readers feel that that, too, is genital mutilation, and one can make the case that it shouldn’t be done until the prospective circumcisee is old enough to give permission. If people want to discuss that, please do so in the comments.
Now onto one form, infibulation, which I hadn’t read about in detail before. The details came from the following tweet:
I just read in more detail about female genital mutilation, which Somalis perform on 99% of girls in their country.
It’s possibly the worst thing I’ve ever read.
Here it is below so you can read it too; although I would advise you not to.
But it is important to understand how…
— Jonatan Pallesen (@jonatanpallesen) December 4, 2025
Here are the details from that tweet. NOTE: THE BIT IN ITALICS IS DISTURBING AND YOU MAY NOT WANT THE DETAILS:
I just read in more detail about female genital mutilation, which Somalis perform on 99% of girls in their country.
It’s possibly the worst thing I’ve ever read.
Here it is below so you can read it too; although I would advise you not to.
But it is important to understand how alien and horrible Somali culture is.
These are acts such that if they happened to a single Danish girl in Denmark, they would be rightfully seen as the most gruesome and grotesque mistreatment ever. It would be a news story running for decades, and the perpetrator would be the most hated man in the country.
This is what every family in Somalia inflicts on their daughters.
Not 5000 years ago in the bronze age. Right now. The Somali immigrant that came here last week had this done to his daughter.
“The process begins with the girl being forcibly restrained; often held down by several female relatives, including her mother or aunts, to prevent movement amid her screams and struggles. The excisor, using crude tools like a razor blade, knife, or broken glass, starts by slicing off the clitoral glans (the sensitive tip of the clitoris) and the surrounding clitoral hood, exposing raw nerve endings and causing profuse bleeding as blood spurts from the severed arteries. Next, the labia minora (the inner vaginal lips) are completely excised, followed by the labia majora (the outer lips), with chunks of flesh being cut away in jagged, imprecise strokes, leaving behind a mangled, bloody wound where the vulva once was. Shock sets in from the excruciating pain, described by survivors as feeling like being torn apart alive, with waves of burning sensation radiating through the body.
Once the removals are complete, the excisor repositions the raw edges of the remaining labia majora and stitches them together over the vaginal opening using thorns, acacia needles, or coarse thread, creating a tight seal. This narrows the opening to the size of a matchstick or pinhole, just large enough for urine and menstrual blood to trickle out slowly, often leading to immediate complications like urinary retention, where the girl strains in agony to pass even a few drops. The stitching is done without regard for hygiene, increasing the risk of tetanus or other infections as pus forms in the festering wound. If the girl faints from blood loss or pain, she’s revived with slaps to continue the ordeal.
Immediately after, the girl’s legs are bound tightly together from hips to ankles with ropes or cloth strips to immobilize her and allow scar tissue to form over the next 40 days, during which she lies in excruciating discomfort, unable to move without tearing the stitches. Swelling balloons the genital area into a throbbing, inflamed mass, and fever often spikes as infection takes hold. Hemorrhage can be fatal if not stemmed, sometimes by packing the wound with herbs, animal dung, or ash, which only exacerbates the sepsis. Survivors recount nights of unrelenting torment, with the pain so intense it induces vomiting, hallucinations, or loss of consciousness.
The aftermath is a lifetime of suffering: the scarred seal must often be cut open (deinfibulation) for intercourse or childbirth, reopening old wounds and risking further tearing, excessive bleeding, or even death during delivery. Menstrual blood pools behind the barrier, causing chronic infections and foul odors; urination becomes a drawn-out, burning process; and sexual activity turns into a source of dread, with friction against the rigid scar tissue feeling like sandpaper on raw skin. Psychological scars run deep, manifesting as PTSD, depression, or a profound sense of bodily violation.”
Again, this is the most brutal form of FGM. Presumably most readers know why FGM is performed. It is “cultural,” but the cultural reasons are often explicit. It’s done to preserve virginity for marriage, as in some cultures you have to be a proven virgin to be married. It’s also done to control women’s sexuality so they don’t experience too much (or any) sexual pleasure; presumably this keeps them from wanting sex.
At any rate, although I’m not implying that the authors above are justifying FGM, I think they are minimizing its harms by saying that it leads to bigotry against people from cultures that practice FGM, even when they’re immigrants. Read the paper if you wish and see if you agree. But for sure people must agree that FGM has to stop; it’s the medical equivalent of wearing burqas, but much, much worse. The WHO is doing what it can to stop the practice, but it’s still very common in some places.
Everyone, and not just feminists, should be aware of it and speak out against it at appropriate times. No, we shouldn’t demonize, say, the Somalis in America just because FGM is common in Somalia. But I think it does no good at all to try to change the words to “female genital modification.”
Somebody asked Grok about the frequency of FGM in the U.S. and I have put the answer below the fold Again, it is hard to estimate numbers or frequenies.
Click “Continue reading” to see what Grok says:
Yes, there are ways to estimate the number through indirect methods like demographic analysis, immigration data, and community-based studies, as there is no national registry or direct tracking of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the US due to its illegal status, cultural sensitivity, and underreporting. Organizations like the CDC, Population Reference Bureau (PRB), and researchers use census data (e.g., American Community Survey) combined with FGM prevalence rates from countries of origin to produce these estimates. However, these figures typically combine those who have undergone FGM with those “at risk” (based on heritage), and they may not distinguish between adults and minors or account for shifts in attitudes post-migration.Key National Estimates for the US OverallThe most commonly cited figures come from the CDC’s 2016 analysis (using 2012 data), which has not been officially updated as of 2024:
- Approximately 513,000 women and girls in the US have undergone FGM or are at risk. This is a threefold increase from the 1997 estimate of 168,000, primarily due to increased immigration from high-prevalence countries rather than rising rates within the US.
- About 55% of this total (around 282,000) are under 18.
- A 2019 independent study adjusted for additional migration patterns and estimated up to 577,000 potentially impacted individuals (including 385,000 living with FGM and 31,000 at risk).
These estimates apply origin-country prevalence (e.g., 99% in Somalia) to US residents born in or with parents from practicing countries. Somalia has one of the highest global rates, with Type III (infibulation) being common.Estimates Specific to Somali-American CommunitiesSomali-Americans are among the largest groups affected, as Somalia accounts for a significant share of immigrants from high-prevalence areas. The total Somali-descent population in the US is estimated at 259,000–260,000 as of 2024 (up from lower figures in prior decades), with roughly half female (about 130,000). States with the largest concentrations include Minnesota (108,000 total Somali-descent, 44% under 18), Ohio, California, Texas, Washington, New York, and Virginia.Specific breakdowns for Somalis (women and girls combined):
- In 2012 (CDC data): 64,000 at risk or affected (12% of the national total).
- In 2013 (PRB analysis): 75,537 at risk or affected.
- Recent studies suggest these numbers have likely increased with population growth, but no updated national breakdown exists. The 2019 study notes Somali communities as “predominant,” with half of at-risk girls (about 15,500 nationwide) living in six key states, and 68,000 women estimated to have Type III FGM (half in five states).
Community-level studies provide more granular insights into actual prevalence (those who have undergone FGM, not just at risk), focusing on immigrant women:
|
Study Location/Group
|
Sample Size
|
Prevalence Among Women
|
Notes
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Arizona (Somali women)
|
879
|
77.4%
|
40.2% Type III.
|
|
Ohio (Somali women, Franklin County)
|
427
|
82.2%
|
58.1% Type III.
|
|
Maine (Somali/other birthing women)
|
55
|
67.3%
|
Community survey (n=394): 47.2%.
|
|
California (African refugees, including Somalis)
|
718
|
30.1% (women ≥15)
|
5.5% among girls <15.
|
|
Multi-site (women from high-prevalence countries, including Somalis)
|
1,132
|
55%
|
From CDC’s Women’s Health Needs Study (WHNS).
|
These studies indicate high rates (70–80%) among adult Somali immigrant women, often performed in childhood before migration, but much lower among US-born or younger girls (e.g., 5.5% in some samples), reflecting shifting attitudes. Many Somali-Americans oppose continuing the practice in the US, viewing it as cultural rather than religious, and citing legal bans, health harms, and human rights concerns. “Vacation cutting” (traveling abroad for FGM) is also opposed by most, though some risk remains.If you need more details on a specific state, study, or aspect (e.g., health impacts), let me know.
Leaving circumcision until a person is old enough to decide for themselves sounds very painful. I’ve never thought much of the arguments against the practice. I don’t think the practice compares in any meaningful way to FGM, nor does FGM seem comparable to the various vaginal beauty procedures done in the West, which are, at least, the woman’s decision.
These discussions always take me back to a comment made by Sir Charles Napier, when he was Governor-General of India. The East India Company was trying to end the practice of widow-burning, or sati, where widows were often forced onto their husband’s funeral pyres to show their devotion. A delegation of Indians came to Napier to remonstrate against the ban, saying it was their custom. He famously replied:
Yes, it does indeed sound painful, but likely it’s just as painful for the infant who is not given any choice. And if the 18-yr-old doesn’t like the idea then he can not ask for it! There is no good reason for unnecessarily cutting parts of a boy’s genitals off (and “tradition” is not a good reason), any more than there is for girls.
I think the fact that men, old enough to make this decision, get erections would make this more painful for them, than for a baby.
+1 You beat me to it today with that one Dr.B.! 🙂
best,
D.A.
Global North
There really is no medical reason to circumcise the foreskin: any advantages it confers are also achieved with soap and water. It is simply a cultural practice in the USA, but very rare in Europe unless done for religious reasons. In Canada it is now very unusual to circumcise a male baby unless Jewish or Muslim.
The form of so called “female circumcision”practiced by some Shia in Iran and the former Muslim Soviet republics that just involves excising a bit of tissue from the clitoral hood but leaves the clitoris alone is arguably as harmless as standard male circumcision. But the more aggressive forms that are widespread in parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa that remove the clitoris seem barbaric to me.
It does make sense to have neutral phrases such as “genital cutting” rather than “genital mutilation” to describe these practices. If you try to convince Somalis to stop “mutilating girls” they will immediately reject what you’re saying. But if you tell them that “cutting” girls has medical ramifications they are not aware of, they are more willing to listen and hear you out.
It is ironic for a feminist to decry the Middle Eastern and African practices of genitally mutilating girls while applauding the practice if it’s done to girls who think they’re boys.
Feminists (other than TERFs) have pretty much bankrupted their credibility over the trans issue. We don’t need to listen to their other catechism to work independently of them to outlaw FGM around the world or at least wherever our laws can reach. Nor do we need to square our opposition to FGM with our views about male circumcision. Pointing out an alleged hypocrisy doesn’t undermine an opponent’s argument. It just feels good to do it, like a bowel movement, but it has no practical impact.
Not sure that we need to talk Somalis out of making their girls and women submit to FGM by changing what we call it. They must know their women don’t like it. That’s rather the whole point. If they don’t want to obey our laws against it, they can move somewhere where it is permitted. Like Somalia.
+1
Well stated, as always, Leslie.
No feminist I know ‘applauds’ FGM for any reason. It is just as evil when done on children for cultural, religious or genderwoo beliefs. A child cannot give informed consent to something life-changing and life-threatening that will ruin their healthy body. It is also against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Feminists advocate for women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Someone supporting child mutilation is not a feminist, no matter what they call themselves..
But nowadays feminists defend the rights of fetishistic men in dresses over the rights of uterus havers. Go figure.
No. No feminist does. Women who support the removal of their own human rights only self identify as feminists in the same way as men who are removing women’s rights self identify as women.
Don’t allow genderwoo people to redefine the word ‘feminist’ like they are trying to redefine so many other words, especially women’s words.
There are now men who parade in womanface calling themselves lesbians and feminists. We have to reclaim our language.
“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” – Philip K Dick
“No true Scotsman . . .” I guess.
Women can’t self-identify as feminists? Is there a vetting process of certification before a Membership Card is issued? I would be with you if you said only TERFs can be feminists, as I implied above. But I’m not sure that all feminists want to adopt the moniker and wear it with pride. “Exclusionary”, you know… May be a bit strong for women whose concept of feminism is tax-funded child care and equal pay for work of equal value.
If a man who thinks he is a woman IS a woman then I guess that a woman who thinks she IS a feminist is a feminist. Logical definitions are out, self identification is in. I guess we must agree that Trump is a “stable genius” since he sincerely self identifies that way.
I can’t reply to the messages below this so I’ll just comment here to answer your points.
My reference to ‘self identify’ was sarcasm. How you self identify doesn’t change reality.
I prefer to stick with dictionaries. A Scotsman isn’t defined by what he wears under his kilt, the fact that Scotsmen don’t wear anything under it is tradition, rather than a definition.
Same with the dictionary definition of feminism. If a woman doesn’t support women’s rights, then she isn’t a feminist by definition.
Trump self identifying as a genius is one of the reasons it’s important to stick to the reality of current dictionary definitions.
I’m not a TERF as I have no issue whatsoever with women who identify as trans, and I am mutual follows on social media with several men who identify as trans who use men’s spaces. I only have an issue with predators who try and access spaces for women and girls, so the literal description for me is a PERF as I am predatorphobic 😁
I’ll stop commenting on this thread now as i’ve probably gone over my limit..
@joolz wrote “No. No feminist does. Women who support the removal of their own human rights only self identify as feminists in the same way as men who are removing women’s rights self identify as women…”
May I quote your entire comment with attribution?
I think that the term feminist has gone through so many iterations since it began that it might be a good idea to simply state what you’re in favor of rather than use a term that’s been used, abused, and redefined so many times. I don’t think “feminist” means the same thing to everyone.
What’s a “uterus haver”?
I think, hope, it was sarcasm. But it reminded me of what Lorena Bobbit reportedy said (but probably didn’t):
“I’m the only woman who ever had dick and I threw it out of the car window!”
+1
I’m not really concerned with whether diaspora Somali communities “reject” the notion that what they are doing is mutilation, because it is — a deliberate mutilation causing a life-changing, permanent injury. If they want to live in the Global North, they should be under no illusion about the penalties that the Global North imposes on those responsible for such mutilation. Any parent of a child who is mutilated should, unless they can show they actively tried to stop it, go to prison for several years, and automatically lose custody not only of the mutilated child but of all their children. Let that filter through the community and see how wedded they really are to the practice. If they don’t like it, I’m sure they’re free to return to Somalia. There is absolutely no reason why Western countries, after centuries of struggle to overcome the idea of religious exemptions from basic human rights, should suddenly capitulate those hard-won rights to appease a practice of despicable barbarity. The authors of this paper are not well-meaning. They are beneath contempt.
The hypocrisy really shows in that the practice you describe, while essentially equivalent to male circumcision, is banned in the global north. The only reason male circumcision is still allowed is because it is practiced by Jews and Muslims and lawmakers are afraid of offending them. The only reason. (Exceptions for medical reasons, of course. A mastectomy as a response to cancer is also not some form of mutilation.)
In which countries is it allowed for parents to get a tattoo for their baby? Or some sort of piercing? Certainly forbidden in many in which male circumcision is allowed.
Of course the relatively benign type of female circumcision described above, like male circumcision, is not as bad as FGM. But saying that one should therefore shut up about it is like saying that the police should not be concerned with robbery, assault, etc. because murder is worse.
I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! The woke are whitewashing something? Heaven, forfend.
Do they really think changing the name of something will change the thing itself?
By way of answering this question, here is an entirely typical
news note from one of many universities: “University leaders replaced the campus’s DEI office with an Office of Access and Engagement.”
At another level, note that Western abhorrence for human sacrifice and for cannibalism tends to stigmatize the cultures in which these practices were once customary. I suggest a contest for new, un-stigmatizing names for both practices.
Perhaps we should resurrect the “He-man Woman Haters Club” in the name of cultural diversity. It could incorporate honor killings of unfaithful partners, daily whippings for those who fail to obey, and mandatory male chaperones for all the gentle sex who wish to venture outside the home. These female reputation protective practices would broaden diversity and enhance inclusivity without judging their ethical and cultural status. Quite uplifting, actually.
Misogyny is the great unifier.
@ginger Please go ahead and use any quote you want. Happy if it can help in any way. Maybe I should make it into a meme 😁
Sadly, I think they are having some success with that. Many of the following are now coming into use…
Double mastectomy – top surgery
Penis amputation – bottom surgery male
Having a rolled up skin tube sewn to your groin – bottom surgery female
Taking hormones not designed for your body – HRT
Man – woman
Woman – man
Ignoring mental illness – affirmation
There are loads more. Some are provoking a reaction from sane people. Many women started adding the adjective ‘real’ in front of the word woman. Transactivists are going berserk because we refuse to use the prefix that they ‘assigned’ to us.
“Affirmation” indeed. So the schizophrenic who self-identifies as the Emperor Napoleon IS Napoleon; the starving anorexic who self-identifies as fat IS fat; and so on. Only in a truly decadent society could such utter nonsense be indulged.
Is it decadence of the old kind, as that word used to be used, or something else? A few something elses come to mind. (1) A psychic breakdown, attendant on the stresses of the beginning of “the long emergency” portrayed by James Howard Kunstler. (2) A large population of lumpen-intellectual midwits who coasted through pointless college years imbibing grievance studies clichés in place of education. (3) A real,
mysterious neurological decline caused by screens, smartphones, social media, etc. etc. (4) Simple, copy-cat imitation of the use of the term “affirmative action” as a disguise for reverse discrimination.
In short, we need a sociology of the general culture in
which the word “affirmation” came to be so misused.
Perhaps rather than “decadent” the term “solipsistic” would’ve been more apt.
Saw this the other day and put it aside for “later reading” bc I was so angry.
I’m not gonna loudmouth here – PCC(E) and the article says it all. I retweeted it. Except… there is always that overlapping Venn diagram of these kind of things with a certain part of the world, or more accurately.. a certain set of beliefs.
D.A.
NYC, USA, “The Global North”
(sigh)
Some behaviours SHOULD be stigmatised.
Bigot:
“a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”.
Note the use of ‘unreasonably’. It is perfectly reasonable to be vehemently opposed to people who practise FGM, therefore it is not bigotry if it is aimed at the specific individuals who perform it. You can also recognise which groups most of the victims belong to so that you can intervene and help, without necessarily being bigoted against the whole group.
“I’m not implying that the authors above are justifying FGM”
I disagree. By changing the term and making it more ‘palatable’ it disguises the true horror of what it is. I understand their reasons for modifying the way it expressed to individuals who practise it, in the hope it will help them stop, but there’s no reason that everyone has to change to a sanitized version of describing it. That paper is purely an opinion piece. Issuing it beyond the healthcare professionals who are involved in stopping it makes me deeply suspicious of their motives.
I’ve been involved in the X discussions and I haven’t seen anyone saying that they will change the term they use.
Yes I agree. This is yet another example of where I would be delighted to be called a bigot if one is vehemently opposed to FGM.
it is the whitewashing of a barbaric practice by the academic useful idiots that is completely unjustifiable. Allowing the standards of normal civilisation to become a slippery slope seems to be the intended purpose. If one can accept one horrible practice against women then society will be forced to accept all.
This article brought out my inner seven-year-old, so here I go marching righteously off the edge of the earth again. Any woman who justifies, condones, or excuses female circumcision/genital multilation should undergo the procedure herself, in a manner of and with the tools, implements, rituals and after care she has justified for others. Step up professors, it’s your turn to walk a mile in the shoes you justify for others.
I commented on X that I was stunned at the number of women’s names in the document. But nowadays, of course, it’s possible that they are all really misogynist men, as so many transactivists seem to be, but I didn’t have the energy to google them and check.
Your recommendation won’t work: it’s cultural appropriation.
In the vast majority of cases, they actually have. Most circumcisers are women who have been raised in the same area and who have undergone the same rituals as children. And it’s the girls’ moms and aunts who hold the poor girl down for the “procedure….” as has been done for generations. Hard to fathom, but true.
This is so awful. Are we utterly unable to say something is wrong? Not a cultural difference, not an alternate way of being. Whether you call it mutilating, cutting, modification, or the best thing since sliced bread, it is wrong and harmful to girls.
We have an epidemic of “Who am I to judge?” It made no sense to me when the former Pope said it (I’m not Catholic, but isn’t guiding the faithful on church teachings kind of his thing? It struck me as evasive, though on a very different topic). It doesn’t make sense for us to pretend FGM is just another reasonable custom.
Nor cannibalism, suttee, etc.
Here’s a passage I’ve used on this issue.
Sanogo and Pusumane (2021) call for “epistemic fluidity” in discussions about female genital cutting to counter “the historically Eurocentric discourse [that] has often framed the practice as morally unacceptable.”
But groups like this and those cited in Jerry’s post differ from and even take issue with larger groups like feminist, woke, progressive, … The debate here seems to be associated with more recent emphasis on postcolonial ideation which casts science as Eurocentric, Colonialist, and the like. The Sanogo and Pusumane article, for example, criticizes Western liberal feminism for its negative stance on FGM and distance themselves from that perspective.
As does the article discussed in Jerry’s post. Here’s a quote: “Second-wave Western feminists who popularised the standard tale saw the various female genital practices of African and South Asian women as emblematic of women’s universal suffering under patriarchy, and affected women were framed as victims.” The authors take issue with this “feminist” perspective.
The primary issue concerns ethnocentrism, which authors claim has even affected empirical conclusions, such as those about harms of FGM.
As a card-carrying Second-wave Western feminist and general fan of Western Civilisation and Enlightenment values, I’m appalled. If framing women who are murdered / raped / mutilated / … as passive victims is now considered Bad then the cultural rot has surely crossed a red line.
.
This debate tells us more about the woke progressive mentality than about primitive genital mutilation practices.
My own observations lead me to conclude that woke progressivism is pretty much just Marxism, even if the believers are unaware of the fact. When Marxism conflicts with their feminism or environmentalism or whatever, the Marxism always prevails.
Along with that comes the belief that something that happens to an individual, even lots of them, is less important than the progress of global socialism. Again, they may not even think in those terms. I came to this opinion when I was reading a series of articles by a woman who had been a strident feminist for a long time. She ended up arguing that the rape of a four year old White girl by three immigrants was not a big deal, and was not technically rape, because , although they forcibly stripped her and urinated on her. the only actual penetration was digital.
The sort of philosophy that leads progressive feminists to condone FGM and child rape is a very dangerous philosophy, in my opinion.
As a second-wave feminist, I will continue to call it FGM and I will continue to think of 5 to 11 year old girls being held down and cut as injuring them physically and psychologically. I became aware of this practice in the late 70s reading the personal accounts written by women who experienced it, who wanted to put a stop to it. Now these writers posted here want us to believe it is not such a bad thing really, after all it is part of some cultures.
The writers of the posted piece suggest that vaginoplasty is equivalent to FGM. I am sad that some women believe they will be more attractive after the surgery and angry that some are greedy enough to prey on such women. However, they are adults who will have surgery under anesthesia in a hygienic environment by a trained surgeon. There is a reason the children are held down during the procedure.
The writers also suggest that this process is not a result of patriarchy because boys are circumcised and women perform the FGM. It is typical for the members of a society to accept the way they were raised, what they were taught to believe, and take their part in those cultural behaviors. The fact that women participate in actions injurious to girls & women proves nothing.
As for their suggesting that bottom surgery on trans people is comparable, again they are adults being treated by surgeons. Based on what I have read, bottom surgery is extremely risky and a high percentage of these procedures result in long-term problems. I am hardly criticizing FGM while promoting dangerous surgeries for “Global Northerners.” And I am equally against adults making permanent changes to children’s bodies in the name of gender dysphoria. Their what-aboutism is weak tea.
Just when I thought the ‘woke’ couldn’t sink any lower… They do…
Yep. The bit in italics disturbing. Nothing to add to the angry and thoughtful comments above except agreement. I like the Yeats.
In response to Comment #9: the fatuous validation and/or
white-washing of everything that is non-European
(or better yet, anti-European) is not Marxism. [It might be
called a kind of romanticism, except it is too silly for that
label.] Marxism used to be an intellectually serious (though
(lamentably reductionist) analytic framework. It explored
social and cultural consequences downstream of the modes of
production/distribution. That sort of analysis was already out
of fashion (especially in postmodern academia) by the 1990s, when the writer Geoffrey Wheatcroft noted that the Left was no longer intellectually serious. The wokies have since taken
the Left into even dopier territory—led, as the article under
discussion shows, from postmodern academia. Let us call it
not Marxism, or even Leftism, but just wokeliness— by now
primarily a category of exhibitionism.
It’s shocking that we still separate discussions of forced child genital cutting based on sex of the victim.
Someone sticks a blade between a child’s legs, cuts away healthy, functional, erogenous tissue, causes pain, deprives a person of the right to live with a whole body, all without consent.
Is it wrong?
You can’t answer until you know whether a boy was cut or a girl. That’s twisted.
If someone were beaten without provocation, would you need to know the sex of the victim to declare the beating an assault? Of course not.
We would make much headway in eradicating the evils of forced female genital cutting if we acknowledged the twin evil of forced male genital cutting. We would eliminate the hypocrisy and inconsistency the current freights the anti-FGM campaign and makes parents sneer at those who condemn them for cutting their daughters while endorsing their “right” to cut their sons.
It’s not a boy or girl issue. It’s a child issue.
Please be aware of the limitations on the number of comments people can make on a post. See “Da Roolz” in the left sidebar.
I don’t understand – this is the only comment I can see from Bryan D Garner.
And I happen to agree wholeheartedly with it.
Can’t we keep this about female genital mutilation? Of 49 comments on this post, at least seven used the post as a springboard to attack infant male circumcision. I realize there are activists for whom the outlawing of male circumcision is one of their callings in life, but FGM is not the place to do it.
The host specificallty asked for comments on male circumcision as well.
You seem to be implying that infant-male circumcision is not something to worry about (“springboard”, “attack”, “activists”, “callings in life”). As long as infant-male circumcision is allowed, then it is hard to argue against the equivalent form of FGM, which can lead to a slippery slope.
Why can’t the goal just be that no-one has the right to make lasting changes to anyone’s body except for medical reasons for minors and that minors can’t consent to such things? Whatever your goal is, it is probably more realistic if you get as many people as possible to join you in pursuing it.
He did. Right you are.
But it’s true. I don’t think infant-male circumcision is something to worry about. Not for me, but it’s also not remotely like FGM. I’ll leave this here.
@joolz Thank you very much!!
My comments are roughly a response to #9 and #14. I regard ‘woke’ as CM (Cultural Marxism). Conventional Marxism (Economic Marxism or EM) was economic and died roughly with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I vividly remember the bitter reproach of liberal/leftist (not I).
“We are going to hear a lot more about trans, than the minimum wage”
I am not accusing the person of Marxism (of any kind). Of course, the writer was entirely correct.
I’m surprised FGM isn’t covered by the National Health.
Summary of current US legislation about FGM at https://www.theahafoundation.org/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-in-the-us/fgm-legislation-by-state/, FYI.