Because I participated in this thread, or because of a particular opinion I posted?
Ohhhh SNAP
None of us know what was done, that part is getting lost. All we know is that the perpetrator said she did hardly anything to the girls’ genitals, and this was contradicted by their physical exams afterward. Story here.
There seems to be no legal benefit to the doctor in minimizing what was actually done and I don’t know why she bothered, but her own words mean nothing.
It looks to me line she said she did nothing at all to the girls genitals. It’s certainly in her interest to say that.
I didn’t have to look very hard for citations. The Wikipedia article
Says: Type Ia (circumcision)[39] involves removal of the clitoral hood only and is rarely performed alone.[e]The more common procedure is Type Ib (clitoridectomy), the complete or partial removal of the clitoral glans (the visible tip of the clitoris) and clitoral hood.[1][41] The circumciser pulls the clitoral glans with her thumb and index finger and cuts it off.[f]
Note that “rarely performed alone”. The usual procedure is to remove most of the external part of the clitoris.
The reference for that is
[e] WHO, 1995: “[There is a] common tendency to describe Type I as removal of the prepuce, whereas this has not been documented as a traditional form of female genital mutilation. However, in some countries, medicalized female genital mutilation can include removal of the prepuce only (Type Ia) (Thabet and Thabet, 2003), but this form appears to be relatively rare (Satti et al, 2006). Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself.”[40]
And that reference points to
CITATION
Close
[40] WHO 2008, 25
Also see Nahid Toubia, “Female Circumcision as a Public Health Issue”, The New England Journal of Medicine, 331(11), 1994, 712–716.doi:10.1056/NEJM199409153311106 PMID 8058079
Carol R. Horowitz, J. Carey Jackson, Mamae Teklemariam, “Female Circumcision” (letters), The New England Journal of Medicine, 332, 19 January 1995, 188–190; Toubia’s reply. doi:10.1056/NEJM199501193320313
I have a feeling you did, and that you weren’t very successful, which is why you ignored at least five of the cites 2square4u requested.
Regarding Type 1a being rare, it’s irrelevant. The story in the OP says:
That description fits the clitoral hood and there are cites that claim that is the type of FGM the Dawoodi Bohra routinely perform such as this:
It could be that we aren’t getting totally accurate information, but with the information we were provided, we are talking about Type 1a here.
What reason do we have to disbelieve doctors that lie to young girls and perform illegal operations after hours, then tell the parents to lie to the authorities about what was going on? :rolleyes:
^ Moron, it was a statement by the attorney, who would have advised her client to tell her everything, and what was claimed to have been done is consistent with what is practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra, which is the sect her client belonged to. I just said it is possible we aren’t getting totally accurate information, but as discussions go on this board, we go with what we have.
The attorney maintained there was no cutting, and as we already know, she’s full of shit. How much cutting was done is anyone’s guess, but for prosecution purposes it doesn’t matter.
Just four posts ago, I cited a snippet from the article linked to in the OP where the attorney says there was cutting. The very first sentence in that article also has the attorney acknowledging it. Where are you getting your information?
From the Detroit Free Press.
The only way I could see to remove a membrane without cutting would be worse–tearing it off.
Lol, I did one Google search, picked the Wikipedia entry (result 2) and it documented that almost all female genital cutting involves removing the external parts of the clitoris.
If I get a chance, I’ll find some cites for the other thread on male circumcision. But if you poke around, I don’t think you’ll have any trouble finding that stuff.
I don’t believe we are talking about type 1a here, I think we are talking about shady people who give ever-changing stories. Perhaps the actual extent of cutting in this case will eventually be documented, but it certainly hasn’t been yet. If the girls had to wear pads, I’m guessing it was more than what you think it was.
So why do you say the attorney is full of shit? The attorney says there was a procedure performed that involved removal. The “no cutting” part probably refers to the clitoris being left intact.
I get that; not sure why you came back to repeat it. I explained why it’s not yet known to be relevant to this case. The Dawoodi Bohra routinely perform hood removal and that’s what the attorney for her client maintains happened. Pursuant to a search warrant, both girls were examined by a doctor. There’s no reason to yet believe the attorney is lying about what procedure was performed knowing that the judge is going to know exactly what it was. That would be one stupid attorney.
You didn’t provide cites in any other thread regarding the five other cites 2square4u requested from you.
I say that because there is an existing doctor’s report that the girls had been surgically altered and it’s referred to here:
It doesn’t matter if the clitoris was left intact or not, so why grant or even bother with that distinction?
So, you said that because of another article which you had not yet linked to?
Of course it matters. Not all forced procedures on a child are equal. Why do you think it doesn’t matter?
Oh I think the lies are pretty consistent throughout. It’s one of the charges against her. The membrane quote in the OP invited questions, my first being “wtf is the genital membrane.”
I would not make that distinction. The feds aren’t going to. I can’t imagine why it matters here.
AAAAHHH!!! :eek:
Answering the questions folks asked me that are relevant to female genital mutilation
citation previously given, but to repeat the money quote:
[e] WHO, 1995: “[There is a] common tendency to describe Type I as removal of the prepuce, whereas this has not been documented as a traditional form of female genital mutilation. However, in some countries, medicalized female genital mutilation can include removal of the prepuce only (Type Ia) (Thabet and Thabet, 2003), but this form appears to be relatively rare (Satti et al, 2006). Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself.”[40]
Thanks for providing the citation. Yes, 10% of all FGM is a very large number, and counts as “many”. I didn’t say “most”, nor did I intend to.
As for what sort of FGM the OP talks about, we don’t know for sure. The doctor claims she just “wiped the genital membrane, and gave the gauze to the mother”. The lawyer admits something was cut, but the article doesn’t say how much. As to what sort of circumcision this particular ethnic group performs, it seems to vary. It sometimes is only a nick to the clitoral hood, especially in the US. It sometimes involves cutting off the clitoris.
Masooma Ranalvi, a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community said
The author of this article (also a member of Dawoodi Bohras) wrote:
This woman (Tasneem Raja, also a member of Dawoodi Bohras) seems to agree that the severity of the procedure done in her community varies, and is often more than just cutting the clitoral hood. She also says the doctor in the story in the OP is lying:
Finally, men who have been circumcised are mostly content, and pretty much all report that they enjoy sex. This survey of the effect of FGM on Dawoodi Bohra women says their experience is not so benign:
A spokesperson for the community complains that the sample surveyed is skewed because of how the participants were identified:
But I think it rather unlikely that you’d find results like that among men circumcised as infants, without a great deal of effort put into finding unhappy men.
Again, I think if they were just nicking the foreskin of baby girls, almost no one would know or care. The reason it’s a big deal is because little girls are being traumatized and even in this community that seems to practice a relatively minor form of FGM, a large number end up with significant damage to the clitoris.
As best as I can tell, all the attorney has said is that there was cutting, disagreeing with the doctor who claimed otherwise. Due to the nature of US law, we may not learn the extent of the cutting, but I hope you can see from the citations I provided above that there’s an excellent chance those girls lost part of their clitorises.
No, I think I said something about “when I had time”, and SURPRISE! I hadn’t had time. I had only had time for the trivially easy one – almost no FGM involves as little damage as the most extreme male circumcisions. (which is why it’s really not comparable.)
I’m about to go answer the other questions now. Check back
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=824972
in an hour or so.