Resolved: FGM is a crime against humanity and the pinnacle of sexism in practice.

Great Debates
1

Definitions:

Female Genital Mutilation

Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), female circumcision, or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), is any procedure involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other surgery of the female genital organs “whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.”[1] The term is exclusively used to describe traditional or religious procedures on a minor, which requires the parents’ consent because of the age of the girl.
When the procedure is performed on and with the consent of an adult, it is generally called clitoridectomy, or it may be part of labiaplasty or vaginoplasty.[2][3][4] It also generally does not refer to procedures used in sex reassignment surgery, and the genital modification of intersexuals.[5][6][7]
Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types.

[ul]
[li]Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).[/li][li]Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).[/li][li]Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.[/li][li]Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.[/li][/ul]

Crime Against Humanity

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, “are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.”[1]

According to the World Health Organization:

I predict…and I confess my prediction is a hope… that this thread will go nowhere fast, because no one around these parts is going to argue with the premise I’ve set out.

However, the topic surfaced a few weeks ago and there was some tentative argument that the practice did not actually represent discrimination and oppression of females because females carried it out. I wasn’t interested in a debate at all in that thread, much less a tangential one on such an enormously important topic.

This morning I watched a wonderful short documentary which addresses the issue of a girl’s power to stop this from happening to her. It shows a “self-help” group of educated women dedicated to helping girls refuse the practice and educating communities as a whole to eradicate it. It shows exactly why it exists and what girls face in struggling against it. Fortunately it has a thrilling ending for the two girls featured, an “alternative circumcision ceremony” at which all the girls who’ve struggled against it are educated and supported in their choice and fight to refuse to be “cut”. (And are also shown exactly what would have happened to them, a photo of a “cut” woman’s genitals, which is greeted by a horrified silence.)

What is made very clear, and this is how the subject was raised in the other thread, is that the practice is something over which the men have control, it is for men that it is done. Fathers require it of their daughters. Husbands demand it of their brides. And as the doc states: “The self-help group know that until Pokot men choose to value uncut women, change is impossible.” The doc shows that the self help group is working on the men, and making progress.

The words of the father of one of the two featured girls are chilling in his matter-of-fact determination to treat the mutilation of his daughter as something necessary not only for his personal standing in the community, but as a means of acquiring cows and beer! What’s heartening, though, is the way his eyes seem to be brimming with emotion when he later expresses his acceptance and agreement with his daughter’s refusal, calling FGM a “retarded practice”. It’s as though he had gone through life previously with an emotional barrier preventing him from feeling anything about treating his daughter that way, and once he felt it was safe, he let the barrier down and his truer feelings, the ones he had buried, came forth.

Perhaps I’m projecting my hopes on to it, but that is what it looked like to me, and I hope it is true, because behind all the horror and heartbreak of the practice itself and the monstrous effects it has on the women, there is the terrible question of why men value a mutilated woman over a whole one to begin with, how “ownership” of her means more than her humanity to him. I hope that without archaic cultural pressures, men are freed as well to love and appreciate and share their lives with women who are whole and able to joyfully experience one of the most powerful and compelling aspects of being alive.

2

Agreed in full. And it’s equally wrong to make any surgical alteration to a boy’s genitalia for cultural or religious reasons. One cannot be acceptable and the other condemed. Either both must be prohibited or both must be allowed.

3

While I find circumcision belongs to another age, you cant really compare it to FGM.

BTW, just to make sure before the thread inevitably derails, FGM isnt a Muslim practice.

4

While female genital mutilation is a terrible practice – vile, hateful, stupid, and all that – it is hardly the pinnacle of sexism. There’s always honor killings, and beating women for the crime of being raped, and the trafficking of girls & women for sexual slavery, just to name three.

5

Resolved: GM is a crime against humanity [del]and the pinnacle of sexism in practice.[/del]
Definitions:

[del]Female [/del]Genital Mutilation

[del]Female [/del]genital cutting (GC), also known as [del]female [/del]genital mutilation (GM), [del]female [/del]circumcision, or [del]female [/del]genital mutilation/cutting (GM/C), is any procedure involving the partial or total removal of the external [del]female [/del]genitalia or other surgery of the [del]female [/del]genital organs “whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.”[1] The term is exclusively used to describe traditional or religious procedures on a minor, which requires the parents’ consent because of the age of the [del]girl[/del] individual.

Amend the rest accordingly.

6

Actually, certain forms of FGM are pretty comparable to male circumcision, like snipping the clitorial hood (which was at one time promoted by “reformers” as an alternative to much more extreme forms of genital mutilation. And pretty much every single “justification” you listed has also been used to justify male circumcision.

7

#1) Who exactly should be charged with this crime against humanity?

#2) Please explain how the ICC has jurisdiction over the parties mentioned in question #1 that should be charged.

#3) Please demonstrate how FGM meets the statutory definition of crime against humanity.

8

He didn’t list any justifications. :confused:

9

Okay, that was a poor choice of words. I was refering to the OP’s list of “cultural, religious and social causes” that are often used as justifications for FMG by it’s proponents.

10

:dubious: I can assure you that sex with circumcised males has not in any way convinced me of some of the rants against circumcision.

“Snipping a ciltorial hood” and “removing 80 per cent of foreskin” are in no way close. If you really think that, you need to rethink women’s bodies.

11

I predict a bunch of anti-(male)circumcision crusaders, as usually is the case with such threads. In any case, why a “crime against humanity”? Why not just child molestation?

12

Me neither. Hearing my infant son’s screams of pain for a week did, however.

Look, I don’t care what adults of either gender choose to do to their genitals. I know people who couldn’t conceivably make it through a metal detector without 20 minutes and a set of pliers to prepare below the belt. Whatever floats your boat, friend.

But there is absolutely no good reason to deliberately injure a minor for no medical reason whatsoever. Circumcision, tattoos, ear piercing, body piercing, tooth filing, cosmetic veneers, tanning beds…it can *all *wait until they’re old enough for informed consent. The greater and less reversible the damage, the worse my moral outrage, so yes, I’d put male circumcision as worse than clitoral hood pricking but better than full infibulation. But it’s all on the same continuum.

13

My son was completely Zen.

14

Yeah, we don’t really know why WhyKid was so pissed off about it. But he was in obvious (if you use the infant pain assessment scale) pain for a good 7-8 days. The pediatrician looked him over with a fine toothed comb and said there were no complications, nothing else going on to explain it. No hair wrapped around fingers or dislocated bones or other common why-is-this-infant-screaming-nonstop stuff. So I figure that while some boys may not feel a lot of pain from it, some obviously do, and I’ll never take the chance of doing that to someone again - or encourage anyone else to - without a damn good medical reason.

15

Yes on part 1. Pinnacle of sexism? Dunno. High up there somewhere, certainly.

I’m not going to compare it to this male circumcision stuff, other than to say that that seems to be a particularly American/Islamic/Jewish custom.

16

I think male circumcision is barbaric and sad, as well. In spite of the fact that it is not anywhere near as destructive as FGM, it DOES interfere with males experiencing the full pleasure of sex as they were meant to, which I know from direct observation of cut and uncut men. Uncut men have far greater sensitivity, no question.

Can’t they all share the pinnacle together? :cool:

Actually, if you wanted to pick some nits about definitions, what could be more sexist than to perpetuate the idea that female sexuality is so wrong, so objectionable, so out of control, so fundmentlly bad and unacceptable, that it becomes a culturally accepted practice to literally slice it away?

I think FGM has a special place because it is not intended to be punitive, like honor killings and beatings for rape, or criminal, as sexual trafficking is. It is treated and spoken of as an honor, a benefit, a fundamental good, showing how deep the sexist rabbit hole goes, so to speak: that entire communities of females could be forced and manipulated into accepting and believing that mutilating themselves, their children, could ever be a good thing… holy shit. That’s some powerful mindfucking going on, hat’s off to the power structure that pulled it off to begin with!

Really…it does make you wonder, doesn’t it, about that first girl or woman? Who came up with that? How could such a thing ever take hold?

No, doesn’t work. Male circumcision sucks, I agree. I STRONGLY agree. But it’s a completely different animal in pretty much every possible way, starting with the intention behind it, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with altering, denying, changing, undermining, or otherwise damaging male sexual experience. And while it does have some degree of desensitizing effect, that’s not the point, nor is it sufficient to actually deny males their fundamental right to sexual pleasure.

Whereas the point of FGM is to rob women of their right to sexual pleasure.

Male circumcision is innocently ignorant and pointless. Female circumcision is nefariously ignorant and very pointed. Nor does the fact that mothers don’t have nefarious intent when they do it make any difference; the goal of denying a girl’s humanity by destroying her sexuality is inherently nefarious. And yes, destroyng her humanity is the goal, because the goal is to control her as a possession of the male. Just like you neuter an animal to keep it from wandering off. Possessions are not humans, and if you doubt it, research slavery.

17

No, they cannot. Sexual slavery and punishing rape victims are both clearly worse than female genital mutilation, and murder is worse than either.

18

I don’t think any child should have that done to them. FGM should only be ok if an adult woman agrees to it for themselves of her own free will

19

Anyone that practices it, promotes it, protects it or tolerates it, if you need to pick somebody. But the ICC charging anyone in particular with the crime is not necessarily the ideal way to address it. I don’t know the ideal way, I’m concerned first that the idea itself be recognized. From there, action can be formulated.

I gave the definition above. Here’s the parts that apply:

If you don’t see how the widespread condoned and accepted practice of torturing and mutilating young women, girls and babies constitutes crimes against humanity, I’m not sure what I can say that will help you see it, but perhaps this from the UN helps:

20

It’s not a matter of which is fundamentally “worse”, it’s a matter of the nature of the acts, as I said. I consider FGM the pinnacle because in spite of the heinous and barbaric and life-altering consequences (not to mention life threatening!) it’s considered a “good” by the whole society in which it is practiced. A positive. A benefit. The girls who undergo it are considered “better” girls.

That is not the same thing as honor killings, beatings and prostitution, which are all recognized as “bad but necessary” or simply bad, nor do you find widespread agreement and participation of females. Some, but hardly general. Tolerance, of course… what fucking choice do you have, living in a society that “honor” kills? But in societies with FGM, the women are the ones doing it, so as far as being an amazing demonstration of sexism, I think getting all the women on board pretty much takes the cake.

But yeah, of course death is worse in terms of the effect! (Although, interestingly, one of the ways they convinced the father in the video to allow his daughter to refuse was to remind him how likely it was that she might commit suicide if he forced her, something which isn’t all that unusual - meaning only that for some girls, FGM IS worse than death, because they choose death in the face of it.)