Female genital mutilation okay in small doses, says American Academy of Pediatrics

[Nessus]

EQUALITY NOW CALLS ON AAP TO REVOKE ELEMENTS OF ITS 2010 POLICY STATEMENT THAT ENDORSES PEDIATRICIANS' "NICKING" OF GIRLS' GENITALIA


NEW YORK, May 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- International human rights organization Equality Now is stunned by a new policy statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which essentially promotes female genital mutilation (FGM) and advocates for "federal and state laws [to] enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a 'ritual nick'," such as pricking or minor incisions of girls' clitorises. The Policy Statement "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors", issued by the AAP on April 26, 2010, is a significant set-back to the Academy's own prior statements on the issue of FGM and is antithetical to decades of noteworthy advancement across Africa and around the world in combating this human rights violation against women and girls. It is ironic that the AAP issued its statement the very same day that Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) announced the introduction of new bipartisan legislation, The Girls Protection Act (H.R. 5137), to close the loophole in the federal law prohibiting FGM by making it illegal to transport a minor girl living in the U.S. out of the country for the purpose of FGM.



FGM is a harmful traditional practice that involves the partial or total removal of the female genitalia and is carried out across Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and by immigrants of practicing communities living around the world, including in Europe and the U.S. It is estimated that up to 140 million women and girls around the world are affected by FGM. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated in 1997 that over 168,000 girls and women living in the U.S. have either been, or are at risk of being, subjected to FGM.



FGM is a form of gender-based violence and discrimination that is performed on girls to control their sexuality in womanhood, guarantee their acceptance into a particular community, and safeguard their virginity until marriage. Taina Bien-Aime, Equality Now's Executive Director explains, "Encouraging pediatricians to perform FGM under the notion of 'cultural sensitivity' shows a shocking lack of understanding of a girl's fundamental right to bodily integrity and equality. The AAP should promote awareness-raising within FGM-practicing immigrant communities about the harms of the practice, instead of endorsing an internationally recognized human rights violation against girls and women."



The current policy is a regression from the AAP's 1998 policy statement Female Genital Mutilation and raises great concern because it denotes a clear shift in addressing the issue. The World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics have unequivocally opposed FGM as a "medically unnecessary" practice, and it is widely recognized that all types of FGM are a form of gender-based violence. Stemming from this perspective, the AAP's 1998 statement sees the practice as a human rights violation, opposes all forms of FGM, and cautions pediatricians about their role in "perpetuating a social practice with cultural implications for the status of women." In contrast, the new 2010 statement no longer uses the term "female genital mutilation" but refers to the practice as "female genital cutting (FGC) or ritual genital cutting," makes no reference to the discriminatory aspect of FGM, and selectively opposes only those forms of FGM that in its view "pose the risk of physical or psychological harm."



Taina Bien-Aime adds, "Throughout the ages 'cultural' practices like foot binding in China have caused lifelong physical and psychological harm to women and girls. If foot binding were still being carried out, would the AAP encourage pediatricians to execute a milder version of this practice?"



The AAP's proposition that pediatricians could offer to "nick" girls' genitalia is problematic and troubling. Advocates also fear that mothers who have until now resisted community pressure and not subjected their daughters to FGM in the U.S., in part because of the anti-FGM law, could be forced under the AAP guidelines to ask pediatricians to "nick" their daughters' clitorises if it is legally permitted. The AAP must revoke its statement, which comes at a time when several African and European countries have noted the increasing dangers of medicalization of FGM and specifically banned medical personnel from performing any form of FGM.

Valuable tool to help immigrant integration, or needlessly knifing girls in their clits?

Spoiler:

It's needlessly knifing little girls in their clits

[Dreadnaught]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/he...cy/07cuts.html

It's just a weird "compromise".

Separately, reading about this has led me to a real-life organization called Intact America: http://www.intactamerica.org/

[Nessus]

It is a "compromise" where small children are subjected to clitoral damage, because,

Well, just because?

What compromise is that?

[CitizenCain]

It is a "compromise" where small children are subjected to clitoral damage, because,

Well, just because?

Because it looks better when it's trimmed back, of course. Also, it might reduce the transmission rate of HIV, or stop little girls from masturbating, or something!

[LittleFuzzy]

It is a "compromise" where small children are subjected to clitoral damage, because,

Well, just because?

What compromise is that?

Better is the enemy of good enough. It might not be suited to that high horse, but until the entire world offs itself in nuclear fire, as per your desire, the bioethics committee decided that not standing on the prohibition rigidly and performing a minimal procedure under modern conditions and safeguards is better than the possible alternatives. And yeah, the number of people who might actually ship their kids off somewhere else for mutilation has to be vanishingly small. I don't know what things are like with Europe's immigrants, but the number of people in the US who have any interest in FGM is already vanishingly small. Even condemning the practice isn't really worth the APA's, or Congress' time.

[Nessus]

Better is the enemy of good enough. It might not be suited to that high horse, but until the entire world offs itself in nuclear fire, as per your desire, the bioethics committee decided that not standing on the prohibition rigidly and performing a minimal procedure under modern conditions and safeguards is better than the possible alternatives. And yeah, the number of people who might actually ship their kids off somewhere else for mutilation has to be vanishingly small. I don't know what things are like with Europe's immigrants, but the number of people in the US who have any interest in FGM is already vanishingly small. Even condemning the practice isn't really worth the APA's, or Congress' time.

Which of course makes it worth their time to recommend it instead

Which only serves, huum, the tribal fag-nuggets who're eager with the knife and quite ready to proclaim the gubment goons aren't good enough to slice and dice this clit, better let uncle Adewale do it instead. Legitimizing the practice seems to have no purpose, although you seem to possess knowledge to the contrary, I suppose it would be too much to ask that you'd let us in on the little secret too.

But as long as it's only a few kids, somewhere, who cares. Yum yum!

(I love how global devastation is my high horse, you win 3 Internet points )

[LittleFuzzy]

Which of course makes it worth their time to recommend it instead

Since they've already decided to waste their time by addressing it, why not?

Which only serves, huum, the tribal fag-nuggets

Yes, that's true. So? Oh yeah, "I don't like 'em, so they aren't worth addressing, so they should be addressed because I don't like 'em." I must say, I did not expect you to be spouting the exact same thing as Rand.

Legitimizing the practice seems to have no purpose, although you seem to possess knowledge to the contrary, I suppose it would be too much to ask that you'd let us in on the little secret too.

Yes, the "little secret" known to me, the APA, and everyone who read that article in the NYT. For Christ's sake, Nessie, it was a bioethics committee. Righteous fire isn't their forte, minimizing real harm in medicine is.

But as long as it's only a few kids, somewhere, who cares. Yum yum!

As long as it's a physically harmless symbolic act then who cares, yes. "How to fight a kulturekampf" is neither their purview, nor their area of competence.

[Nessus]

Since they've already decided to waste their time by addressing it, why not?

Do you know what a clitoris is?

Yes, that's true. So? Oh yeah, "I don't like 'em, so they aren't worth addressing, so they should be addressed because I don't like 'em." I must say, I did not expect you to be spouting the exact same thing as Rand.

I suspect Randy ought to be offended by this one

Yes, the "little secret" known to me, the APA, and everyone who read that article in the NYT. For Christ's sake, Nessie, it was a bioethics committee. Righteous fire isn't their forte, minimizing real harm in medicine is.

Yes, medicinally it is very possible to inflict a plethora of harm on a human being without breaking the skin or common rules of conduct. We in the BDSM circuit prefer to keep it among consensual adults, however; perhaps you could enlighten us as to how knifing up a clit is ethical and cool?

As long as it's a physically harmless symbolic act then who cares, yes. "How to fight a kulturekampf" is neither their purview, nor their area of competence.

Who said it was harmless? Can I take a knife to your penis without buying dinner first?

[Catgrrl]

Saw this article the other day on the pregnancy forum I am on. I'm guessing this is an attempt to keep families from taking their girls out of the country to get the procedures done in a questionable medical environment.

That being said, I found it extremely hypocritical that the mothers on that board were outraged by this, but in the very next sentence said they have absolutely no problem with circumcision. It's the same damn thing, but they believe the silly rhetoric about keeping STDs down and cleanliness, rah rah rah. It's weird that people who use 21st century technology like computers can't get past barbaric practices like infant genital mutilation.

[CitizenCain]

That being said, I found it extremely hypocritical that the mothers on that board were outraged by this, but in the very next sentence said they have absolutely no problem with circumcision. It's the same damn thing, but they believe the silly rhetoric about keeping STDs down and cleanliness, rah rah rah. It's weird that people who use 21st century technology like computers can't get past barbaric practices like infant genital mutilation.

These folks really should be addressing the widespread barbarism of male genital mutilation in this country, rather than the issue of female genital mutilation, which probably only affects one in every 75 million Americans. (Or whatever the number is - has there ever even been one case of FGM in America in modern times?)

[Hazir]

Interesting how some people in this thread make it dependent on to how many people this is done to see it as a matter of concern. Maybe they should talk to a victim once, or see the film Desert Flower before they say it's not important enough to care about.

[LittleFuzzy]

Interesting how some people in this thread make it dependent on to how many people this is done to see it as a matter of concern.

You could just say "Fuzzy," Hazir :P And I don't think that's the case. I do think that if I hadn't made a comment on that matter, though, that Nessie or someone else would have objected to the concern raised by the ethics committee, that parents would take their kids out of the country for the procedure/ceremony, as affecting too small a population to be relevant.

[CitizenCain]

Interesting how some people in this thread make it dependent on to how many people this is done to see it as a matter of concern. Maybe they should talk to a victim once, or see the film Desert Flower before they say it's not important enough to care about.

Yeah, well, if that's the case we really should focus on the much more barbaric practice of human sacrifices to Satan by water-boarding innocent victims in goat's blood, eviscerating them and rubbing salt onto their exposed entrails. A practice, which, in addition to be more brutal than FGM, affects just as many Americans every years as FGM does.

Horrible and all, but... should we really be focusing national attention on something that affects a grand total of 0 Americans every year? Is is our attention (and effort) better spent elsewhere, perhaps?

[Hazir]

You could just say "Fuzzy," Hazir :P And I don't think that's the case. I do think that if I hadn't made a comment on that matter, though, that Nessie or someone else would have objected to the concern raised by the ethics committee, that parents would take their kids out of the country for the procedure/ceremony, as affecting too small a population to be relevant.

There is a huge difference between being concerned about side-effects and finding the unacceptable is acceptable. The solution for this problem is not showing understanding for its continuation but rooting it out. It is not the task of the association to lower the threshold.

This is not much different than saying that sex with children should be possible because otherwise paedophiles will just travel to Thailand to do their harm there.

[Catgrrl]

I'm actually wondering, by causing this to come to light, if we can begin to have the dialogue of ending genital mutilations for both genders. I know this isn't the intent of the AAP, but it would be a good side effect of this negative publicity.

[Dreadnaught]

Saw this article the other day on the pregnancy forum I am on. I'm guessing this is an attempt to keep families from taking their girls out of the country to get the procedures done in a questionable medical environment.

That being said, I found it extremely hypocritical that the mothers on that board were outraged by this, but in the very next sentence said they have absolutely no problem with circumcision. It's the same damn thing, but they believe the silly rhetoric about keeping STDs down and cleanliness, rah rah rah. It's weird that people who use 21st century technology like computers can't get past barbaric practices like infant genital mutilation.

It looks like we'll have this discussion after all...there is a huge difference. The issues and data surrounding male circumcision are wide-ranging, complicated and don't do things like make men unable to have orgasms.

I'm not saying everyone should go out and get circumcised, but I am saying that it's not an identical issue between men and women. Which is why said mothers treat male and female circumcision differently.

[CitizenCain]

It looks like we'll have this discussion after all...there is a huge difference. The issues and data surrounding male circumcision are wide-ranging, complicated

"Recommending routine circumcision [...] to prevent HIV [...] is scientifically unfounded."

International Journal of STDs and AIDS, 1999.

And since that's the only actual health argument for male circumcision, it would appear that we're back to it just being a barbaric genital mutilation, performed without anesthesia or consent of the patient, with dubious (if any) actual health benefits.

And again, sorry your folks sliced up your wang, but that's no excuse to perpetuate that kind of abuse on other, innocent children.

and don't do things like make men unable to have orgasms.

I'm not saying everyone should go out and get circumcised, but I am saying that it's not an identical issue between men and women. Which is why said mothers treat male and female circumcision differently.

No, that's due to people being stupid.

Lopping off a chunk of a guy's genitals is fundamentally no different than lopping off a chunk of a girl's genitals. And male circumcision can result in an inability to have penetrative sex (not to mention making erections very painful), which is something that can't be said of female circumcision. Seriously, how often do you think you'd actually be able to orgasm if, for example, even getting an erection caused you to double over in pain, or caused the skin on your penis to tear, and so on?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...cision+botched

Rally should be required reading if you're going to have this discussion - fun stories of male children who (as a result of botched circumcisions), for example had their penises mangled so badly, they were given gender reassignment surgery and raised as girls, all kinds of "loss of some or all sexual function tales," and even a bunch of suicides, because the guys didn't want to live as dickless wonders, incapable of experiencing sex, or let's face it, any real romantic relationship.

Yippie! Completely harmless and justified! We should force more men to have their genitals mangled! Woohoo!

[Khendraja'aro]

You could just say "Fuzzy," Hazir :P And I don't think that's the case. I do think that if I hadn't made a comment on that matter, though, that Nessie or someone else would have objected to the concern raised by the ethics committee, that parents would take their kids out of the country for the procedure/ceremony, as affecting too small a population to be relevant.

There are plans to make female circumcision a crime punishable by prison with a minimum of two years. This new law would also allow the prosecutors to push for a conviction if the circumcision happened abroad.

[Catgrrl]

My take on this has nothing to do with orgasms, but doing a medically unnecessary surgery on a newborn. Whether it be male or female.

If you decide as an adult to do it, fine. If you are one of the rare persons that develop an issue with the skin flap, then okay. But just because people don't want to teach their little boys to clean themselves, or have this bizarre idea that uncircumsized men are more likely to carry and spread STDs, is not a valid reason to do it anymore. I mean damn, I have to clean myself, and women have more extra skin than men do. Why is it acceptable to not teach a boy to wash himself, when soap and water is so cheap in America?

[Dreadnaught]

Cain, did you really cite 1999 data when the major shift in this kind of research happened ~5 years ago?

I'm sorry this stuff bothers you so much, I can't imagine what it's like to think about this all day.

Catgrrl, you haven't read the studies, have you? It's not some bizarre idea. It's legitimate, and should be part of the decision process. Or at least is a reason not to ban it.

[Catgrrl]

Or you could wear a damn condom, or not sleep with every damn thing that moves.

Seriously, since women have extra skin, doesn't that mean we can harbor the same bacteria and viruses in our private area? So, then should we be chopping off our parts too?

Anyway, it's something that will have to change over time. Maybe one day.

[LittleFuzzy]

There is a huge difference between being concerned about side-effects and finding the unacceptable is acceptable. The solution for this problem is not showing understanding for its continuation but rooting it out. It is not the task of the association to lower the threshold.

I am aware that your approach to any cultural practice you dislike is to illegalize everything about it and around it, you've been making that abundantly clear for years.

[LittleFuzzy]

"Recommending routine circumcision [...] to prevent HIV [...] is scientifically unfounded."

International Journal of STDs and AIDS, 1999.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that publication date is from before the studies people have been referring to the last few years, right?

[CitizenCain]

Cain, did you really cite 1999 data when the major shift in this kind of research happened ~5 years ago?

Easiest source to find - point being that there isn't exactly any scientific agreement on whether or not the rate of HIV transmission is even significant and statistically valid, let alone whether or not that justifies genital mutilation at birth.

Anyway, and the rest? There was a lot more to that post than "the science on the only health argument for male circumcision isn't yet settled."

I'm sorry this stuff bothers you so much, I can't imagine what it's like to think about this all day.

Yeah, imagine... someone getting worked up about violence and mutilation perpetrated against tens of millions of children a year. What kind of obsessive loon could possibly get worked up about such a thing?

Catgrrl, you haven't read the studies, have you? It's not some bizarre idea. It's legitimate, and should be part of the decision process. Or at least is a reason not to ban it.

Stitching female children's vaginas shut at birth would have a much greater effect on the prevention of HIV than male circumcision, and therefore, we should factor that into the decision on whether or not to force infant girls' vaginas closed at birth.

I am aware that your approach to any cultural practice you dislike is to illegalize everything about it and around it, you've been making that abundantly clear for years.

Yeah, he's crazy. Before you know it, he'll be advocating that the "cultural practice" of stoning women to death for disobedience should be illegalized too. Come now, you, of all people around here know far better than to fall into that particular fallacy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that publication date is from before the studies people have been referring to the last few years, right?

It *is* the easiest and least ambiguous quote from a scientific study on the issue, may as well point that out, instead of explaining why a single digit percentage reduction in HIV transmission is not necessarily statistically significant or scientifically valid.

[Catgrrl]

Also, just simply out of curiosity, is there a study of STD prevalence in Europe, where circumcision is much lower rates than the US? I read the study linked by Dread, and it only had Africa and the US listed.

[CitizenCain]

There are, but the two rates aren't really comparable, because of any number of differing factors between the US and Europe... and as far as STD transmission goes, circumcision is going to be the least of the causes. Condom usage, number of sexual partners, frequency of sex, etc. are all going to be different, so you can't really glean anything about circumcision and STDs by comparing the two rates.

If you had a brain, you could probably glean something about how unsuccessful abstinence-only sex "education" is, but that's a whole different thread, I think.

[Nessus]

I'm sorry this stuff bothers you so much, I can't imagine what it's like to think about this all day.

Stop pulling dishonest shit like this. You're not convincing anyone, you're not being funny, you're just inviting another sorry for your ding-a-ling, and no one wants that.

It is not an assault on you personally that circumcision can go wrong, or that it reduces the amount of nerve endings by so and so much.

And while you might find this funny coming from me, this isn't some huge anti-Semitic conspiracy, either. There is a difference between having the practice banned and not lopping off the foreskin of a vast majority of the boys in Murika willy-nilly. The false dichotomy that either everyone does it lest the little kike boys feel lonely in the showers, or it is banned like the Nazis were running Murika all over again helps absolutely no one in this discussion.

So knock it off, please? We all know you're a manly stud with many notches on your belt, you have nothing to prove, etc etc

[Dreadnaught]

I love that this pisses both of you off so much. And that you think I take this as some kind of personal penii-religio insult.

But on the contrary, a penis and a vagina are kinda sorta an actual dichotomy.

That is the point.

[CitizenCain]

But on the contrary, a penis and a vagina are kinda sorta an actual dichotomy.

That is the point.

Oh, do explain further... this should be good.

[Lewkowski]

I love that this pisses both of you off so much. And that you think I take this as some kind of personal penii-religio insult.

It kind of amuses me as well. I particularly enjoyed when Moradin made the claim on the old forum that male circumcision was just as bad as female circumcision... like wow. But that is someone who was raised in South Africa one of the cesspools of the world.