Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

[Greta]

For those who think a ceremonial nick would suffice the ritualistic aspect of this and protect young women, I say you grossly underestimate the level of savagery towards women that those who subscribe to this belief actually are willing to perpetuate. It is in my mind a violation of the very heart of the profession. It is not acceptable to do this nor commemorate said ritual in any way. It is interpreted as sanctionand/or toleration for the whole concept.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

This is well said and expresses my concern as well. Tolerance for ANY amount of genital mutilation will be seen as condoning it, and will therefore, I sadly fear, lead to more of the phenomenon, not less of it. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

[Quickbeam]

Tolerance for ANY amount of genital mutilation will be seen as condoning it, and will therefore, I sadly fear, lead to more of the phenomenon, not less of it.

 

Yes. So in order for Americans (and the professional organization in question) to establish credibility, we need to advocate for genital integrity for everyone.

 

One procedure amputates part of the genitalia and the other amputates much more. Should making this distinction persuade us that human rights are being violated more for one than for the other? I'm not convinced.

 

Why is it acceptable to use terms like "after care" for infant circumcision, but not for FGM? Isn't the difference that we are used to infant circ. in this culture? What's disturbing to me is the way some posters insist on critiquing the cultural norms of others without first turning an eye to the normative violence we do here to male infants.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Quickbeam

[Greta]

Yes. So in order for Americans (and the professional organization in question) to establish credibility, we need to advocate for genital integrity for everyone.

 

I completely agree.

 

One procedure amputates part of the genitalia and the other amputates much more. Should making this distinction persuade us that human rights are being violated more for one than for the other? I'm not convinced.

I think a pretty powerful argument can be made that female genital mutilation is indeed more of a human rights violation since it is removing much more than skin, it *dramatically* reduces or even eliminates that person's ability to enjoy sex for the rest of her life, it often has serious life-long medical consequences such as an inability to pass urine and menstrual fluids, and it even interferes with that person's ability to have children. So yes, I consider that even more of a violation.

 

Why is it acceptable to use terms like "after care" for infant circumcision, but not for FGM?

I never made any such claim, so I cannot answer your question.

 

What's disturbing to me is the way some posters insist on critiquing the cultural norms of others without first turning an eye to the normative violence we do here to male infants.

On what basis are you assuming that we have not considered male circumcision to be unacceptable?? This is pure assumption on your part. Edited May 9, 2010 by GretaLynne
too emotional

[keptwoman]

 

On what basis are you assuming that we have not considered male circumcision to be unacceptable?? This is pure assumption on your part.

I don't think she is referring to you. I'm guessing she is referring to Bill.

[SonshineLearner]

Either way, I'd rather a f*or*sk*n be cut off with a medical person in charge... (rather than rituals where the adult men chase a young man down... and cut it off... while the poor younger man is in pain) and a young girl being nicked by someone... who has a steady hand... and is doing minimal damage. Both of them have decreased S*x**l pleasure for the man and perhaps the woman.... But, although I don't agree with c*rcing... at least while they don't have a say... I don't agree at ALL with little baby girls being cut on. (and I wouldn't pierce their ears... either...)

And... I have to say that male c*rcing is not at all the same. AT least guys enjoy s*x either way... which is MUCH more than the women with it cut up...

 

Hmm

[Quickbeam]

I am not arguing that the two procedures are medically exactly the same, but rather that the differences don't make one more ethical than the other. Why get bogged down in the minutiae of how grotesque circumcision is? I can barely watch a video of a male infant being circ'd, and I know enough of anatomy to imagine how horrible it must be for a girl. But who hurts worse is secondary to the main point: we could defend girls better if we defended boys first.

 

Either way, I'd rather a f*or*sk*n be cut off with a medical person in charge... (rather than rituals where the adult men chase a young man down... and cut it off... while the poor younger man is in pain)

 

I understand, but what makes you think male infants dont feel the same pain? Most routine infant circs are performed without anesthesia. Videos of typical RIC lead me to guess that the babies feel as much pain as any adolescent initiate.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Quickbeam

[Greta]

But who hurts worse is secondary to the main point: we could defend girls better if we defended boys first.

 

I fail to see why our defense of boys must come "first". It seems to me that we would make the most powerful argument by standing firmly against ALL forms of non-consensual genital cutting at the same time.

 

But I would like to ask what effect you think the practice of this "nicking" might have on people's view of circumcision? I've already expressed my fear that this nicking will have the unintended consequence of making it seem acceptable to alter a girl's genitalia in any way. And it seems to me that adding girls to the ranks of those who are having their genitals cut here in the US makes the whole idea more acceptable, less shocking, more routine. I don't think acceptance of this will do any good to the anti-circumcision cause.

 

I am not arguing that the two procedures are medically exactly the same, but rather that the differences don't make one more ethical than the other.

 

But differences of degree do matter in ethics! FGM is more painful, it is more brutal, it is more violating, it is a far greater alteration of the human body with far more tissue being removed, and it has much more serious consequences, emotional and physical, for the rest of that person's life. So yes, it is even more unethical.

[Greta]

I don't think she is referring to you. I'm guessing she is referring to Bill.

 

Oh. Since she quoted me in the first part of her post, I thought it was all directed at me. But I think the same question would still apply. I did not see Bill stake a claim on the circumcision debate in this thread, simply say that this thread wasn't the appropriate place for such a debate. Then again I missed something very obvious in another recent thread I was involved in, so I can't put it past me. :)

[kokotg]

Oh. Since she quoted me in the first part of her post, I thought it was all directed at me. But I think the same question would still apply. I did not see Bill stake a claim on the circumcision debate in this thread, simply say that this thread wasn't the appropriate place for such a debate. Then again I missed something very obvious in another recent thread I was involved in, so I can't put it past me. :)

 

Bill's made his position clear in past threads.

[Quickbeam]

Greta, I agree with you that we need to defend all children against circ. I could have been more clear when I said we need to defend boys first. I mean that since we routinely circ. male infants in this country, we need to look at that practice before we claim the authority to tell FGM practitioners to stop.

 

But differences of degree do matter in ethics! FGM is more painful, it is more brutal, it is more violating, it is a far greater alteration of the human body with far more tissue being removed, and it has much more serious consequences, emotional and physical, for the rest of that person's life. So yes, it is even more unethical.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting that differences of degree don't matter in ethics generally. In this particular case, differences of degree aren't fundamental differences in my view. FGM is more dramatic, yet the distance b/t it and RIC is farther in our minds b/c many of us view RIC as no big deal. It's horrid in its own way, and I think we need to recognize that and do something about it before we claim moral authority over FGM practitioners. I'm not sure we have even begun a wide and thorough investigation of the effects of RIC. I have not seen any data on it, anyway. I'm not so much interested in anecdotes.

 

Which brings us back to the main topic of this thread, which is (as I read it), how we in the US (both professionals and lay people) should dispose ourselves to the question of genital cutting. Until the AAP comes out forcefully against RIC and censures pedis and OBs for practicing it, I don't see how they can credibly make suggestions on the topic.

 

Finally, I will re-read your posts, Greta, and give them more thought. That's always worthwhile when the posts are thoughtful, which yours are. I appreciate that:).

Edited May 9, 2010 by Quickbeam

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Greta, I agree with you that we need to defend all children against circ. I could have been more clear when I said we need to defend boys first. I mean that since we routinely circ. male infants in this country, we need to look at that practice before we claim the authority to tell FGM practitioners to stop.

 

 

 

Again, I'm not suggesting that differences of degree don't matter in ethics generally. In this particular case, differences of degree aren't fundamental differences in my view. FGM is more dramatic, yet the distance b/t it and RIC is farther in our minds b/c many of us view RIC as no big deal. It's horrid in its own way, and I think we need to recognize that and do something about it before we claim moral authority over FGM practitioners. I'm not sure we have even begun a wide and thorough investigation of the effects of RIC. I have not seen any data on it, anyway. I'm not so much interested in anecdotes.

 

Which brings us back to the main topic of this thread, which is (as I read it), how we in the US (both professionals and lay people) should dispose ourselves to the question of genital cutting. Until the AAP comes out forcefully against RIC and censures pedis and OBs for practicing it, I don't see how they can credibly make suggestions on the topic.

 

 

I have to disagree here. I strongly believe that the differences of degree between Female Genital Mutilation and male circumcision are fundamental IMHO. In fact, I believe it very inaccurate to refer to FGM as circumcision because it is not circumcision at all. I think referring to FGM as circumcision glosses over what it really is: the entire removal of a female's equivalent of a penis:( Hence, I believe that we can claim moral authority in this instance so to speak since removing an entire organ is barbaric compared to removing some skin on a male. I think it would be wrong not to speak out against FGM first as a priority.

 

OTOH, I share some of your concerns about circumcision, but I still conclude that it is not an evil as compared to FGM. I support a parent's decision to not perform circumcision or to perform it. I personally would have chosen not to have it for my son, but I left the decision up to dh who is a very thoughtful person who has not problem going against societal norms when he morally disagrees:D. I would also consider that I think men would have stopped the practice ages ago if it truly impacted their sexuality IMHO. OTOH, many women around the world are powerless in many respects to effect change and therefore, would not have been easily been able to stop FGM which does affect sexuality as men are able IMHO. I realize that many women from those cultures want their daughters to have FGM done, but I truly believe it is from fear that their daughters will not be marriage material and therefore doomed in a cultures that do not value the freedom of women:(

[Mom-ninja.]

As much as I WANT to be outraged, I find myself unable to be. I think it's discriminatory to completely discount the cultural aspect when "we" (generally speaking) continue to defend the cultural aspect of male circumcision, which is much more extreme than what the Journal of the AAP discusses.

 

 

Exactly! :iagree:

[Spy Car]

Board Rules:

 

Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball. (Conversely: if someone posts, "We don't do Halloween; what can we substitute?" don't take this as an opportunity to prove to them that Halloween is really just fine.)

[Guest JessiKKa]

But differences of degree do matter in ethics! FGM is more painful, it is more brutal, it is more violating, it is a far greater alteration of the human body with far more tissue being removed, and it has much more serious consequences, emotional and physical, for the rest of that person's life. So yes, it is even more unethical.

 

Granted, many of the types of FGM are more serious and have more serious consequences than male genital mutilation.

 

However, this isn't a competitive suffering. Both genders die from genital cutting. Just how much of my little finger can you cut off before it is a human rights violation ?

 

Genital mutilation is not an issue of severity, it’s one of sovereignty. If eradication of FGM were based solely on the notion that it harms health, one would expect people to support a reduced form of female cutting (clitoral hood), comparable to male foreskin amputation, under hygienic and anesthetized medical conditions. That they are virtually unanimous in their opposition to even a "nicking" of the female foreskin indicates that the issue goes beyond severity and is one of sovereignty. Genital cutting of healthy unconsenting individuals fundamentally violates individual autonomy.

 

It’s perverse to excuse one cruelty by invoking a worse one. The genitals of both sexes should be left intact without encouraging a "dreadfulness competition" between assaults on little girls or boys.

Edited May 9, 2010 by JessiKKa

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Board Rules:

 

Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball. (Conversely: if someone posts, "We don't do Halloween; what can we substitute?" don't take this as an opportunity to prove to them that Halloween is really just fine.)

 

 

 

We understand that this is your position, Bill. We do not agree on this. Both genders deserve to have genital integrity.

 

This is NOT a matter of 'apples and oranges'. This IS very closely related. Circumcision took hold in this country (AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT IT BE DONE WITHOUT ANESTHESIA SO BOYS WOULD REMEMBER THE PAIN AND NOT REPEAT THE ACT!) to stop masturbation not to cure or prevent any disease. Later, doctors went on to assert that circumcision prevents MANY, MANY diseases that are in no way related to the penis.

 

This IS very similar. I get that you don't agree with that, but I really do not believe that people were bringing up an unrelated subject just to stir the pot.

 

We can agree to disagree.

[Spy Car]

We understand that this is your position, Bill. We do not agree on this. Both genders deserve to have genital integrity.

 

This is NOT a matter of 'apples and oranges'. This IS very closely related. Circumcision took hold in this country (AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT IT BE DONE WITHOUT ANESTHESIA SO BOYS WOULD REMEMBER THE PAIN AND NOT REPEAT THE ACT!) to stop masturbation not to cure or prevent any disease. Later, doctors went on to assert that circumcision prevents MANY, MANY diseases that are in no way related to the penis.

 

This IS very similar. I get that you don't agree with that, but I really do not believe that people were bringing up an unrelated subject just to stir the pot.

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

 

It is all off-topic. The topic is the bio-medical ethics of physicians being involved in preforming ceremonial blood-drawing in the hope of preventing cases of female genital mutilation.

 

You, and others, are using the thread as a springboard for an attack on male circumcision.

 

It is (to my mind) a clear violation of the board rules, and the irrationality of some of the comments are clear examples of why intelligent discussions are so difficult to have on this forum sometimes.

 

It was an interesting topic. Too bad.

 

Bill

[Carrie12345]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html

Group Backs Ritual "Nick" as Female Circumcision Option

By PAM BELLUCK

Published: May 6, 2010

New York Times

 

In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the

practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures,

the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors

be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick†on

girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending

them overseas for the full circumcision.

 

The academy’s committee on bioethics, in a policy statement last week,

said some pediatricians had suggested that current federal law, which

“makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals†of

a girl in the United States, has had the unintended consequence of

driving some families to take their daughters to other countries to

undergo mutilation.

 

“It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled

pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a

possible compromise to avoid greater harm,†the group said.

 

But some opponents of female genital mutilation, or F.G.M., denounced

the statement.

 

“I am sure the academy had only good intentions, but what their

recommendation has done is only create confusion about whether F.G.M.

is acceptable in any form, and it is the wrong step forward on how

best to protect young women and girls,†said Representative Joseph

Crowley, Democrat of New York, who recently introduced a bill to

toughen federal law by making it a crime to take a girl overseas to be

circumcised. “F.G.M. serves no medical purpose, and it is rightfully

banned in the U.S.â€

 

<rest of story at link>

 

This is a shocking story. I don't want the indefensible to be normalized in the U.S. Immigrants who are bent on female genital mutilation should not come to the U.S., and if they practice it here (or abuse American children while abroad), they should be prosecuted as other child abusers would be.

 

Board Rules:

 

Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball. (Conversely: if someone posts, "We don't do Halloween; what can we substitute?" don't take this as an opportunity to prove to them that Halloween is really just fine.)

 

Quoting just to point out that, while no actual inquiry was made, the post seems to be akin to "Is Halloween evil?" The OP certainly didn't ask how many of us practice FGM or what we substitute with. As such, I think it falls under "have a ball." (If this is, indeed, the rule such a conversation would fall under.)

[swimmermom3]

Quoting just to point out that, while no actual inquiry was made, the post seems to be akin to "Is Halloween evil?" The OP certainly didn't ask how many of us practice FGM or what we substitute with. As such, I think it falls under "have a ball." (If this is, indeed, the rule such a conversation would fall under.)

 

Carrie, if I understand you correctly, you think the post is suspect? If that is the case, I would agree. It has been an interesting conversation even if divisive, yet I am not sure as to the op's purpose in starting this thread. Typically, if a poster known to the board pushes the hot button, they stick around to "play ball." This same poster started a now locked thread on Islam and terrorism three days ago and never returned to comment on that thread either.

 

I find it interesting to have these posts and those of two others that are stirring things up all at the same time and all three joined in April. Full moon? Coincidence?

[Greta]

Quickbeam, I am humbled by your kind comment. This has been a very emotional discussion for me (even surprising me how much so), so if I have managed to maintain any thoughtfulness in my posts, I am glad for it.

 

I also appreciate your clarification in this recent post. I think I understand your position better. But, regretfully, I must still disagree with you on two points.

 

I mean that since we routinely circ. male infants in this country, we need to look at that practice before we claim the authority to tell FGM practitioners to stop.

 

I think we have that authority based on the fact that FGM is a horrendous human rights violation. Period.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting that differences of degree don't matter in ethics generally. In this particular case, differences of degree aren't fundamental differences in my view.

And I guess this is really our basic point of disagreement, because I do see them as having several fundamental differences. As Priscilla so rightfully pointed out, they are different in that the women in the cultures where this happens are generally powerless compared to the men in cultures where circumcision is practiced. They are different in that a man is still able to be fully sexually functional after circumcision, where a woman who has been mutilated in this way is not. They are different in that while the appearance of the male sex organ is changed somewhat, the very existence of the external female sex organ has been eliminated, eradicated, destroyed, as if her femaleness itself were a horrible disease to be gotten rid of.

 

You may see the differences in the two acts themselves as a matter of degree only. But look at the difference in the purpose of the act. Are parents in this country having their little boys circumcised because they see male sexual pleasure as something so dangerous or disgusting that it should be eliminated? That is what makes these two things incomparable: the intention behind them. The purpose of FGM is to put an end to female sexual pleasure. The purpose of RIC, misguided as it may be, in most parent's minds is the health of their sons. That is why these two issues cannot be addressed in the same way or equated ethically, they are fundamentally different social phenomena.

 

 

FGM is more dramatic, yet the distance b/t it and RIC is farther in our minds b/c many of us view RIC as no big deal.

My husband and I were both in strong agreement that if we had had a little boy, there is no way in the world we would have had him circumcised. We had a girl. And I would not even pierce her ears until I felt she was old enough to make that call herself! I'm only saying that so you don't think I have no clue where you're coming from. But the distance between RIC and FGM *is* great in my mind, for the reasons I shared above and in previous posts, not because I dismiss RIC as something trivial.

 

ETA: Sorry I was unclear. I realize you are not accusing me personally of trivializing RIC. I'm only saying that there are valid reasons for a person to feel more impassioned against FGM than they do about RIC, without necessarily trivializing or condoning RIC. Does that make sense?

 

Until the AAP comes out forcefully against RIC and censures pedis and OBs for practicing it, I don't see how they can credibly make suggestions on the topic.

I'm not sure how much credibility they have either. But one thing is undeniable: they have power and influence. I pray that they will put it to good use. Edited May 9, 2010 by GretaLynne

[Quickbeam]

I'm not sure how much credibility they have either. But one thing is undeniable: they have power and influence. I pray that they will put it to good use.

 

This made me laugh (in a sad way). It's too true. Still, I'll take the AAP over the ACOG any day...

 

And b/c there has been mention of pot stirring (I haven't read the other threads in question) and b/c I am pretty new here: I am not a troll, I promise. I come by my passionate internet presence innocently enough and I don't mind a heated discussion. We had trolls on my baby wearing board during election time 2008 and it was just awful.

[swimmermom3]

This made me laugh (in a sad way). It's too true. Still, I'll take the AAP over the ACOG any day...

 

And b/c there has been mention of pot stirring (I haven't read the other threads in question) and b/c I am pretty new here: I am not a troll, I promise. I come by my passionate internet presence innocently enough and I don't mind a heated discussion. We had trolls on my baby wearing board during election time 2008 and it was just awful.

 

Quickbeam, welcome to the board. You've jumped into a heated discussion with intelligence, passion, and courtesy. Best wishes to you in your home schooling efforts.

[phathui5]

 

These are the actual recommendations:

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

 

1. Opposes all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM).
    
   
2. Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM.
    
   
3. Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGM.
    
   
4. Recommends that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents.
   

 

[Greta]

Quickbeam, welcome to the board. You've jumped into a heated discussion with intelligence, passion, and courtesy. Best wishes to you in your home schooling efforts.

 

:iagree: Welcome!