Misplaced Pages

In what way does this not describe a procedure which boils down to medically unneccessary surgery? I find it disturbing to see articles renamed and redirected just in a sort of empty drive for political correctness. What next? Is the article on torture going to be retitled "forceful interrogation" out of fear that the word "torture" implies a value judgement? There's something disturbing about this to me.

By analogy, take the abortion debate. Both sides have attempted to reframe the issue with new terms. "Pro-life" is for those who know that the word "anti" seems negative and turns listeners off, whereas "Pro-choice" is for those who are afraid to use the word abortion. I call myself pro-abortion; if you can't bear to say the name of the thing you support, you need to reexamine your support of it. Likewise, defenders of "FGC" - by which I mean those who protect it as a valid cultural practise for others - seem to me to be hiding behind a word ("cutting") that excuses them from the self-examination required by a more honest term. It disturbs me to see Misplaced Pages choosing a less accurate, and thus less honest, term merely in order to avoid controversy. Aren't we supposed to be truth-tellers here?

Respectfully, Kasreyn

No, I disagree. Pro-choice means that you aren't necessarily pro-abortion, but you would not deprive others of the right to choice. I personally am definitely not pro-abortion, but I am definitely pro-choice, as in I would never advocate abortion, but I believe that it's wrong to make it illegal.

Thanks, 138.38.234.29 11:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC) <-- bugger, forgot to log in, Cmjrees

4 It is not open to the charge of partisanship, as 'Female Circumcision' is.

5 It does not invite comparisons between the genital cutting of females and males in the way that 'female circumcision' does.

What do others think? Michael Glass 02:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your first objection, I think that the others are valid, and I would tend to support the proposal. Though they do not endorse your idea that 'female circumcision' is partisan, the UNFPA have made similar comments.

I am vaguely uneasy with 'cutting', as not all forms involve cutting. I'm tempted to suggest 'alteration'. I'm not sure we should be inventing new terms, but we do have precedent from the genital modification and mutilation article. Any thoughts? - Jakew 10:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I have often seen 'female circumcision' used by those opposing it, especially if they are Intactivists, and want to equate female circumcision with male circumcision. The choice of language varies, but is always either MC/FC or MGM/FGM. - Jakew 11:37, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would further propose that we include a short paragraph on terminology, citing the UNFPA as a source. Comments? - Jakew 11:39, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake. I think the following passages from the UNFPA are worth pondering:

Female genital mutilation:

this is also a collective name to describe procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to female genital organs whether for cultural or other non-medical reasons. This term is used by a wide range of women’s health and human rights organizations and activists, not just to describe the various forms of FGC but also to indicate that FGC is considered a mutilation of the female genitalia and as a violation of women’s basic human rights. Since 1994 the term has been used in several United Nations conference documents, and has served as a policy and advocacy tool.

Female genital cutting:

Recently, some organizations have opted to use the more neutral term ‘Female Genital Cutting’. This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term ‘mutilation’ demeaning since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers. The use of judgmental terminology bears the risk of creating a backlash, thus possibly causing an alienation of communities that practice FGC or even causing an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGC. In this respect it should be noted that the Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices (ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights) recently called for tact and patience regarding FGC eradication activities and warned against the dangers of demonizing cultures under cover of condemning practices harmful to women and girls (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/14).

As you said, this document confirms my contention that the term FGM is used by opponents of the practice and that FGC is more neutral. The fact that 'female circumcision' is used by some to condemn male circumcision and by others to justify female genital cutting is another strike against it. However, the greatest objection is its tendency to confuse the issues involved. Michael Glass 14:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A quick point: when a piece of farm machinery mutilates someone, no one suspects it of malice aforethought. Likewise, IMO, parents and doctors ignorant and custom-bound, are not necessarily malicious. They are merely, by the simple dictionary definition of the term, mutilating their children. See my comment above. I also believe that taking up the term FGC just because other organizations are doing it too is foolishness of the lemming variety.

Also, if we are going to call it FGC, then for equality the male version must be called "male genital cutting". -Kasreyn

I disagree that 'female circumcision' devalues 'male circumcision' Jenchurch

Indeed. As an aside, the latter paragraph ought to be required reading for Intactivists. - Jakew 15:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Jayjg 05:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Female Circumcision is the most common term, and using a different term is odd. The entire reason to rename it seems to revolve around avoiding associating female circumcision with male circumcision, which is a POV. I think the article is better off with the old name, 3 people agreeing upon changing the name isn't enough anyways. --Scandum 12:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If you bother to read the above, you will find that five reasons are discussed. The term FC is considered POV by some, but not others.

I'm sorry that you disagree, but saying nothing when it is proposed, leaving the impression that anyone interested is in favour, then reverting when somebody bothers to do something is not helpful. I am reverting back to the redirect. Should a clear consensus in opposition be expressed in future, by all means revert. - Jakew 12:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think people didn't entirely take it serious. To Address your reasoning:

2 Female Circumcision This is used by those who favour one or more of the procedures.

No, this is the common term, and hence used by those who oppose the procedure as well.

Partly agree - see my comments above.

1 It is a partisan term, preferred by those who favour one or more of these procedures.

No, it's the common term, as google shows as well.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

2 It is imprecise. The article itself says that only the mildest form of genital cutting is comparable to male circumcision. However, 'female circumcision' is used to denote all forms of genital cutting, from the mildest to the most severe.

I don't think any informed person would think that making an incision in the clitoris is equal to or milder than male circumcision.

No doctor refers to a cosmetic operation as 'cutting' Jenchurch

If you bother to read the article, you'll see that it only states that clitoridotomy (which affects the clitoral hood, not the clitoris) is comparable, according to the UNFPA. Your argument is a straw man.

I don't think any legitimate operation on the genitals could be considerd cosmetic. The genitals really don't exist for looks.Christopher 06:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

3 It can be seen as muddying the distinction between different forms of genital cutting.

Circumcision is as clear as genital cutting, especially since cutting doesn't imply different forms either.

The word 'circumcision' literally means 'cut around'. Not all forms of FGC do this. Cutting means what it says.

4 It can be seen as muddying the distinction between these procedures and male circumcision.

This seems to be your main motivation, since your claim that female circumcision is used by those advocating the procudure is outragious.

Actually, I am a distinct entity from Michael Glass. We are diametrically opposed in views on circumcision, yet agree on this. Does this tell you something?

5 It can obscure the differences between traditional practices and modern cosmetic procedures.

Same goes for male circumcision, which is still a bloody mess as it's practiced in some african countries.

By all means propose a name change there, then.

For all these reasons I would suggest that we look at 'Female Genital Cutting' as a preferable title.

1 It is more NPOV.

I think insisting on genitial cutting is POV.

Want to explain why?

2 It is more precise than 'Female Circumcision"

It's just as precise, since most people know female circumcision involves genitial cutting.

Non sequitur.

3 It does not carry the value judgments implicit in the terms 'Female Genital Mutilation' and 'female circumcision'.

I always thought circumcision was pretty neutral.

More neutral than mutilation, certainly.

4 It is not open to the charge of partisanship, as 'Female Circumcision' is.

No, female circumcision is the commonly accepted term for this practice.

Did you bother to read the UNFPA commentary?

5 It does not invite comparisons between the genital cutting of females and males in the way that 'female circumcision' does.

Trying to avoid this comparison shows a strong POV.

On what possible grounds is avoiding comparison more POV than making one? Surely this line of argument is like claiming that "Elvis is alive" is less POV than removing the statement?

Discussing this and acting upon it within 2 days isn't a whole lot of time for anyone to respond. I'm revering the article once again. --Scandum 12:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I decline to get into a revert war with you over this. Nevertheless, I consider this behaviour deplorable for your arrogance and rudeness.

I have inserted comments in italics above. - Jakew 13:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the redirect is making it hard to reach this discussion. --Scandum 12:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Term circumcision in general

I of course had to throw in my two cents:

I think that the term circumcision in general is a euphemism whether used to describe a procedure done to boys or girls. In both cases the term is primarily used by those in favour of it. It is very similiar to an argument recently waged on the circumcision page about the use of the term uncircumcised vs. intact. A large number of people, including many circumcisionists favoured the term uncircumcised while a large minority were split between intact and any other term. Then of course the revelation surfaced that uncircumcised itself as defined by presumably neutral dictionary.com (does anyone care to argue that dictionary.com is an anti-circumcision organization) as a religious term meaning heathen -- obviously a word loaded with negative conntations. Ironically those in favour of the term uncircumcised had been using the argument that intact was loaded, but, to my knowledge couldn't provide anywhere near as compelling evidence to support it. Ever since there has been an onslaught of people with very sketchy arguments trying to have the section about the term uncircumcised = heathen removed, probably in an attempt to shield the term from critism for fear that intact will prevail. My point? The terms are all very loaded and vary widely depending on perspective, so please, if you feel the term is loaded, you must provide rock solid information to support that conclusion. Even if you do be prepared to be challenged. I do not in the end care which term is adopted, but I do hope there is consistency been the terms used for males and females so that we can all see that mutilation of the genitals is not limited to one sex and please don't try to make it a special case when done to one sex or the other. Mutilation is mutilation. Sirkumsize 12:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, sometimes female circumcision is done because the clitoral prepuce completely shields the clitoris from external stimulation, and actually improves erotic sensation in certain females. Jenchurch

...and sometimes male circumcision is done for good reason too. No one is denying this. Its when its done for bad reasons that it makes me angry. Sirkumsize 10:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The real discussion shouldn't be over whether circumcision should ever be allowed, but over who should have a say in it. If it were up to me, circumcision would be treated like any other form of surgery - it would be the decision of a doctor whether it was needed, for a medical reason, or not. A parent's freedom of religion cannot be a viable defense for permanently altering their children's bodies, because that directly interferes with the child's freedom of religion. (At least, this is for nations enlightened enough to enforce such freedoms). Furthermore, I've stated previously in this discussion why mutilation is the best term for the procedure as done to males and females: because the term is clinically accurate. -Kasreyn 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mutilation is inherently a POV term, because it implies functional or cosmetic harm. 'Alteration' is a possible alternative which is accurate yet NPOV, but Misplaced Pages should not invent new terminology. Jakew 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I firmly disagree. As I've stated above, the definition of mutilate from the American Heritage Dictionary of English, 4th Ed. is as follows-

mu·ti·late v.

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably; mutilate a statue.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

To me this seems both clinical and accurate. I also don't see what you're saying about "implies functional... harm". Is there anyone in the world who honestly thinks surgical amputation of functional body parts does not result in functional harm? What we are talking about here is medically unneccessary surgery. Please try to keep your eye on the ball. -Kasreyn 15:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well there you are. Sense 1 implies removal of something essential. Sense 2 implies cosmetic harm ('disfigure'). Sense 3 explicity suggests harm ('make imperfect'). All three senses are subjective; they imply a value judgement.

Obviously you think harm is always done. Fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but other people will disagree. NPOV dictates that we do not endorse any of these viewpoints. Jakew 15:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point, Jakew. "Mutilation" would probably offend those who feel the genitals 1. are uglier intact, 2. are nonessential to the body, and 3. themselves cause the body to be imperfect (so that their removal would either make the body more or equally perfect, and not be mutilation). This of course happens to be the viewpoint of those who perform the custom. :P I wonder what percentage of the human population holds which belief... Regardless, I'm aware Misplaced Pages is not here to be a public opinion poll - though too often it functions as one. I'd settle for the term "circumcision", which is also clinical and accurate. The term "alteration" is obviously far too general to accurately describe the process being discussed; it would require merging this article with all sorts of other examples of genital "alteration", such as the Prince Albert. Whereas "cutting" is a euphemism which lacks the clinical value of "circumcision". Thus,

• Circumcision: Clinical, accurate, and specific.
• Mutilation: Accurate, somewhat specific, opinionated.
• Alteration: Accurate, nonspecific.
• Cutting: Inaccurate, nonspecific.

Thanks for the discussion, I'll quit bugging you now. :P -Kasreyn 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What we need to do here is have a vote. Whether people like it or not, both terms are POV in one way or another. I propose changing this article's name back to Female circumcision, simply because this is the most common term used. You can do a simple Yahoo! search to prove this...I type in "Female circumcision" and I recieve 1,390,000 hits. I type in "Female genital cutting" and I get 402,000 hits. As you can see, the former term is used almost three times more than the latter term. Both mean the same thing, both are POV. We need to change the article back to the name most commonly used. --Mad Max 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really don't think Google hit counts are particularly useful or illustrative, given the Googlebomb phenomenon and the fact that the search engine's algorithms are not publically transparent; for all we know, Google could be accepting "pay for rank" on the sly.

That being said, I strongly support a move back to "Female Circumcision", for the reasons I enumerated back in January. My opinion has not changed: Circumcision remains a more clinical and accurate term than the unneccessarily vague (not to mention euphemistic) "cutting". If there were a vote, I would vote for "Female Circumcision". Kasreyn 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no single "clinical and accurate term" that encompasses all of the procedures mentioned here. Removal of the hood and removal of the clitoris are worlds apart, both in medical technique (snipping off external skin vs. excising an entire organ) and in sexual effects. Also (still in the context of medical techniques and sexual effects) infibulation has nothing to do with either of these procedures. "Female Genital Cutting" is a nice, non-biased umbrella term encompassing all procedures. "Female Circumcision" is not. --Lode Runner 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Mutilation is more accurate, & it's the accepted term used by many in the international & national medical, legal & human rights fields. It is, from talking with friends, a dangerous & sometimes lethal mutilation.dick 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Controversy over unsafe medical conditions (such as those that can result in infection and death) is a separate matter from controversy regarding the procedures themselves. Males can die from circumcisions just as easily as females from FGC due to poor hygiene and nonexistent medical facilities.

2. Not all of these procedures are equivalent. Removal of the clitoral hood is akin to male circumcision, and has just as little (or arguably even less--see my post below) impact on sexual ability. If hoodectomies are "mutilation", then so is male circumcision. Given that most people reject the term "mutilation" for male circumcision, so too should we reject the term for (at least) hoodectomies.

3.I have more sympathy for using the term "mutilation" in reference to clitoridectomies. I can understand the desire to avoid the term for NPOV reasons, but I don't think (for example) Misplaced Pages has a problem using terms such as "maiming" and "mutilation" regarding medieval torture. Perhaps the difference is one of intent--people who perform clitoridectomies may genuinely believe that they are not mutilating anything--but I think that a more reasonable definition of mutilation would be based on deprivation of bodily function by destruction or removal of tissue, and clitoridectomies (which fundamentally alter--many would say almost completely deprive--the ability to have orgasm) clearly falls under this definition. Nevertheless, "mutilation" is probably still a loaded term and should be avoided. We can make clear the consequences of these procedures, and allow the reader to come to his or her own judgment. --Lode Runner 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"parents understandably resent the suggestion that they are “mutilating” their daughters" - some parents would resent the suggestion that they traditionally sell their daughters into sexual slavery but this is a fact. --Vladko 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vladko: apples and oranges. One is objective fact, as you correctly point out (did they or did they not sell the child into slavery? yes or no?). The other is a cultural/subjective value judgement: was that genital modification a mutilation or an enhancement? Different people, in different cultural environments, will answer differently. That the genitals are modified by FGC is a fact, and not in question; the questionable part (the non-factual part) has to do with the aesthetic or other value of said modification. Different strokes for different folks. See comments directly below. See also the Schweder article referenced and excerpted in the section far below. See also the Boddy book referenced and excerpted in the section far below (near bottom of this page as of mid-July 2007). -- Alan2012 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Mutilation":

The word "mutilation" can be, and often is, based on culturally-constructed value judgement. The fancy keloidal scars of some traditional african cultures, for example, might be called "mutilations" by some, but they are decorative and attractive to others, namely those who have them and create them. Voluntary limb amputations might be considered mutilations by most people, but I gather that there are those who have them and want them. So, who is to say? The extremity of something like voluntary amputation (!) leads me to consider that maybe my phrase "often is", in the first sentence, is too cautious. Maybe "mutilation" is always either culturally constructed, or subjective in origin. In any case, the focus here should be on the procedures which are carried out involuntarily, on young women not yet at the age of consent; this is where there is a human rights issue. I don't see the point of bickering about cultural/subjective aesthetics when they are chosen by individuals of age. I, personally, percieve some body-piercing extremes to be on the borderline of "mutilations", but that doesn't mean that I have the right to insist that they be described as such in an encyclopedia. That's my idiosyncratic reaction, not a representation of objective fact. -- Alan2012 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: From the standpoint of the majority of women who seek genital modification (which is the majority of women who have it), it is in no way "mutilation", but rather enhancement or beautification. Those are facts, which you can ascertain by studying the issue (just spend some time reading about it). Those are facts, but they would not justify calling this article "Female Genital Enhancement", since "enhancement" is a cultural/subjective value judgement. The title "Female Genital Cutting" is only so-so; it puts too much emphasis on technique, which is incidental. The title "Female Genital Modification" would be more appropriate, and it might include other practices such as piercings and ring insertions, tatooing, Western surgical alteration ("pussy lifts"), electrolysis and shaving, "feminine hygiene" sprays, etc. Whether such modifications are beautiful, repulsive, or in-between is a subjective and cultural matter. -- Alan2012 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Abuse" link set

I am removing the table of links about abuse lodged within the (still of questionable neutrality? do we still need that lable?) FGC and HUman Rights section. If whoever put that in there insists on equating this ritual practice with abuse, you are welcome to insert a non-pov paragraph discussing who believes this and why with citable sources. I will then offer a follow up paragraph with citable sources that do not believe all or even most fgc rituals qualify as abuse. ~FreddieResearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddieresearch (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. A cultural tradition should not be deemed 'abuse'. the followup free title reeks ethnocentrism. -Dr.Huang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.12.221 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a cultural tradition should not be deemed abuse. Could you elaborate? Ciotog 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To say that one cannot use a term like "abuse" because it is ethnocentric is to deny the fact that within these very cultures, there are plenty of people who think it's abuse. You side with only one group within these cultures and affirm that people there must live lives of static, unchanging values dictated by an authority, if you stifle debate in this way. Terms like ethnocentrism are more accurately used to question use of heavily laden terms like "civilized" or "savage". QuizzicalBee 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot claim that forced operations are not abuse. If this is what you are claiming, you are wrong and are knowingly spreading disinformation for your own purposes. A practice such as described in this article deserves no such protection from being described as abuse simply because it is a ritual or a cultural norm. I can give you a number of examples of cultural norms and rituals that would be widely considered to be abusive and illegal. Mrsteveman1 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They can do if they've got the cites. What they can't do is remove other's cited material saying the opposite.WolfKeeper 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"'Most' Human Rights Organizations" in opening statements

Added "most" because Abusharof's article in Female "Circumcision" in Africa" mentions Sudanese feminists and human rights activists who do not actively oppose the ritual. Moreover, the African Union's human rights charter conspicuously makes no mention of FGC (FGM, whatever) rituals, though it was written after many very public anti-fgc human rights charters were published. ~FreddieResearch

I don't think this is unusual. Charters aren't the place for specifics. Laws are. Sirkumsize 12:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I used the word 'charter' inappropriately in second instance above. I made a metonymic error in taking the part of a charter which is a declaration for action for the entire charter. The declaration for action of the 1992 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Recommendation No. 19 specifies FGM as does the 1993 Elimination of Violence Against Women UN declaration. It is also mentioned specifically in the Cairo Declaration and Action Programme of the United Nations Conference on Population and Development and the 2000 ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement. Can these be considered charters? Now that I think about it I'm not so sure they can't.

Most is opposing to some isn'it? Ericd 23:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Canada

The Canada bit says "Canada, just running the risk of female genital mutilation is already sufficient reason to obtain the political asylum status". Can someone confirm it is all forms of FGC? If so, we should change the wording to FGC for consistency and neutrality purposes. If it only applies to certain forms, this should be clarified and the FGM bit removed... Nil Einne 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Indonesia

There was inconsistency in the statements about Indonesia. In the bit about where it is practices it states " In Indonesia the practice is almost universal among the country's Muslim women; however, in contrast to Africa, almost all are Type I or Type IV (involving a symbolic prick to release blood) procedures". However in the bit about Type II/clitoridectomy it stated: "It is, however, quite common in Indonesia and many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, east-Africa, Egypt, Sudan, and the Arabian Peninsula". I am pretty sure the first statement is correct and so have removed Indonesia from the bit about type II. If you are confident I am incorrect, you're welcome to correct the article but please provide evidence if possible... Nil Einne 18:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10102.htm supports my theory Nil Einne 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Malaysia

With regards to Malaysia, a few quick searches and from what I recall having read and heard before (I'm Malaysian) female circumscion is quite common among Malaysian Muslims (or at least Malaysian Malay Muslims). As they make up 65% of the population, the 'certain ethnic groups' as per the original article doesn't sound right. I'm not really sure whether the practice is nearly 'universal' among Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims, I suspect not so I've also clarified this. If you can find evidence or are resonably it is nearly universal, go ahead and correct it. Nil Einne 18:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The different forms with regards to human rights etc

I feel the article needs a bit more with regards to the different forms of HGC and human rights etc issues. To my knowledge, most condemations and human rights groups tend to concentrate on ending type II & III but don't care so much about type I and type IV prick type circumscion. While many may still be against I and IV it generally doesn't appear to be a big concern for them. For example, you don't here much of a fuss about FGC in Malaysia and Indonesia. In fact, I don't know if any women's groups from there have ever even had it as part of their agenda (c.f. Africa). The article does mention a bit about the way the different types are treated and regarded but IMHO not enough. Nil Einne 19:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures or photos or diagrams

Would it be possible to get hold of some? Be good to break up the article, maybe, and clarify things.

Will this one do? Zuiram 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a couple sites, maybe could get permission to use the pics? FGM pictures and graphics Stop FGM --Thoric 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Misplaced Pages should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To Freddieresearch

Hello again, Freddie. I'm curious as to your lower edit in this last change, regarding sexual pleasure. If you're implying that sexual pleasure outside of the clitoris exists and is not impeded by circumcision, you should reread the original paragraph; it specifically refers only to pleasure derived from the external part of the clitoris being lost when that specific portion is amputated. Are you trying to say that a missing appendage can still be stimulated? That's not the appropriate paragraph to make the "other forms of pleasure" argument, imo. Respectfully as ever, -Kasreyn 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Research from Carla Obermeyer 2003, Ellen Gruenbaum 200(2?) and the personal experience of Fuambai Ahmadu (sp?), Sierra Leonian anthropologists suggests that the sensitivity of the clitoris (and the clitoris iself) extends far deeper than that which is removed during a 'circumcision operation', even in its most extreme forms. To fully amputate the clitoris one would have to, pardon my bluntness, dig for it. I would be interested in knowing where the sensitive spots are on a male subincised penis. If you want to see something freaky, Kasreyn, check that out! ~FreddieResearch

I have seem numerous references other places to "removing the entire organ", and in fact I have read a procedural account of exactly this. In the text i read, the clitoris is literally removed by digging beside it back into the body with a knife, detaching it at the back, and pulling the entire organ out, all of which are not only possible but would seem to be consistent with the suspected goal in some cases, namely causing a complete loss of all sexual feeling. Mrsteveman1 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the entire organ is often removed, plus the labia, and pretty much everything but a thin layer of tissue covering bone. There's no comparison with a subincised penis--that's making an incision along the shaft of the penis, not removing the penis entirely.

Comment by Pixiequix

THE W.H.O. AND U.N. DEFINE THIS ACT AS FGM. IT SHOULD BE CHANGED.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixiequix (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pixiequix, Misplaced Pages is a group effort. If you want to make major changes to a controversial article, you will need to engage in discussion with the article's other editors if you want to get anywhere. Simply making unilateral changes and blanking other people's work is a great way to operate - assuming your goal is to be reverted and eventually blocked as a vandal. Please try to take a more conciliatory stance; you'll find that we're all reasonable people here. -Kasreyn 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, why are the WHO and UN the arbiters of accurate terminology? 'MUTILATION!!!' is far easier to fund than 'circumcision'. - FreddieResearch

FGC

I've gone through the article and standardized all references to "FGC". I don't personally agree with the use of the term, but a majority of editors on this issue seem (to me) to prefer it for reasons of NPOV. As it was, the article was saying FGC in some areas and FGM in others. I'm certainly up for debate on changing it to "circumcision", though, since that's what the article is currently titled. -Kasreyn 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. Research2006 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

An objection to the use of the term "Female Circumcision"

The term "Female Circumcision" is a "vague and misleading expression" (Daly 156) that refers to sunna circumcision, clitoridectomy, and excision and infibulation (or pharaonic circumcision). "Female Circumcision" masks the horrors of this mutilation.

And female genital 'mutilation' masks its facts. Mutilation makes many teleological and moral assumptions that responsible evidence simply does not suppport. It also prevents any intelligent discourse about misuses of the circumcision ritual or actual sexual violence that might need to be adressed in the future. FGM is the boy who cried wolf medicalized. - Freddieresearch

By using the term "circumcision," female genital mutilation (FGM) is equated with male circumcision. Male circumcision is not the same thing as FGM. In male circumcision, the foreskin (or prepuce) is removed from the penis. The circumcised male can usually preform sexual functions normally. He can also orgasm. There are some risks when performing a male circumcision, including but not limited to infection and hemorrhaging. Sunna circumcision is when the clitoral hood (or prepuce) and/or the tip of the clitoris are/is removed. When only the clitoral hood is removed, this is parallel to male circumcision.

Another form of male 'circumcision' is the sub-incision where a penis is cut open from the base to the head cating a 'bifurcated' penis. Yet another is when the head of the penis is quickly stabbed with a small spear or impaled with thorns. Also, all responsible research performed thusfar indicates that female sexual function is not lost in most cases of 'FGM'. See below. -freddieresearch

Other forms of FGM are not parallel to male circumcision. Clitoridectomy (or excision) is the removal of the entire clitoris. The labia minora and external genitalia may be removed as well. In excision and infibulation a clitoridectomy is performed. The sides of the vulva are then joined. The woman must be cut open for intercourse and childbirth. When the clitoris is removed, the woman is no longer able to orgasm. After infibulation, a woman cannot perform sexual functions normally. Because sex can never be enjoyable for a mutilated woman (and in fact it is usually very painful), it cannot be equated to male circumcision.

For research on the sexual capabilities of infibulated women see Lightfoot-Klein, H. The Sexual and Marital Adjustment of Genitally Circumcised and Infibulated Females in the Sudan. Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 26, No. 3 (1989), 375-392. Also see: Obermeyer, C. The Health Consequences of Female Circumcision: Science, Advocacy, and Standards of Evidence. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 17(3), 2003. 394-412 and Gruenbaum, E. The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective. and Shweder, R. What About "Female Genital Mutilation"? And Why Understanding Culture Matters in the First Place. Daedalus, Vol. 129, No. 4 (Fall 2000), 209 - FreddieResearch

Female genital mutilation is the only term that fully encompasses what actually happens. Circumcision excludes excision and infibulation. Female genital cutting excludes infibulation. The term "Female Circumcision" is a misnomer when it refers to anything besides the removal of the clitoral hood. "Female Circumcision" obscures the facts. The term female genital mutilation is a better reflection of the facts.

see above and my comment below. - freddieresearch

Work Cited

Daly, Mary. Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Beacon, 1990. 156.

This isnt feminism, this is gendered chauvinism. the idea that there is a 'universal woman' and mary daly happens to know exactly what it is. Women who circumcise are just as legitimately 'women' as ms. daly is. - Freddieresearch

However some type IV procedures (simple prick) can hardly be called mutilation, at least by most common understandings of the term. Also, this quoted text had completely ignored FGC (female genital cutting) which seems to be the accepted term (perhaps because FGC is a more recent term didn't exist in 1990). To be fair, the sample problem applies for FGC in that type IV procedures can't be called cutting either however this isn't quote as bad since the term cutting doesn't potray the practice in such a negative light as FGM. You might to read the discussions above in which the general conclusion was FGC was the best term. I agree with most of the points. Calling it female circumscion clouds the issue since it equates in the eyes of many all the praticises as equivalent to male circumscision when in reality some of them involve a lot more mutilation whereas some of them involve no mutilation at all. Calling it FGM clouds the issue becuase mutilation carries strong negative connotions. This is not acceptable as some type IV procedures can hardly be called mutilation and some type I procedures although perhaps can be called mutilation are in many ways equivalent to male circumscion (therefore by calling female circumscions mutilation but not male, we are clouding the issue). FGC appears to be the best term. FGModification as proposed elsewhere seems an interesting alternative but it's arguable whether we should be inventing terms, it abbreviates to FGM and if we call it modification we arguably should include stuff like clitoral piercings which we don't currently discuss here. Therefore FGC seems to remain the best term for now Nil Einne 12:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A brief case for the use of - female 'circumcision' - : Calling it circumcision emphasizes the ritual aspect of the ordeal. Caling it 'circumcision' emphasizes the inexactitude of the term. The fact is, FGM, FGC, FGS, circumcision, etc. all refer to somthing imaginary. The acts performed in Egypt are worlds away from those performed in Sierra Leon or Kenya. The use of a single term doesnt represent the practices themselves so much as it does the discourse about these practices in law, anthropology and human rights. I use the term "female 'circumcision'" because it is as inexact as its referant and is used by even strongly anti-'circumcision' scholars like Ellen Gruenbaum, Shell-Duncan and Herlund (sp?). The most exact term would have to be somthing like 'ritual genital modification practices'. This would then exclude those Freudian inspired clitorectomies in the US and England in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and narrow our gaze to those practices that are specifically ritualistic. What do you think? The term 'female genital cutting' has got to go and of course 'fgm' is simply academically irresponsible and 'white man's burden'-ish. _Freddieresearch

Comprehension

It seems to me that those who are insistent upon their 
Non Point of View doctrine have not offered up much aside 
from that repeated declaration. Those who have petitioned 
according to their principles or opinions have made a 
commendable effort and typically eloquent and/or well researched
 arguments. This uter stagnation of progress in the response 
to those who have petitioned for action or a change is reprehensible. 

pixiequix 11:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you don't understand what a god damned encyclopedia is. Encyclopedias don't take sides. Go get a Xanga. -Kasreyn 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kasreyn! You're a wiki-badass in my book.  :) -FreddieResearch

How about you all go get a Xanga. You act like children. P.S. Objectivity is not 100% possible as research is stilted on opinion.

Female Circumcision?

This term is POV and biased. FGM can be said the same. The only between is FGC, so I don't know why this page was moved to Female circumcision. I'll be moving it back and if there's an objection, we can discuss. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling the Police original research

I removed the text regarding awareness of the ability to call the police, from the Law and Order bit. It's not sourced and it's not derived from any other information included in the article, so it's clearly original research. Furthermore, I don't know (and doubt the person who added it knows) whether female genital cutting is illegal in NYC or not. Law and Order is set in a fictionalized New York, anyway; the show's writers can alter actual laws as much as they need for plot purposes. -Kasreyn 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

POV material was reinserted by Kchishol1970. I've taken the liberty of re-removing it. Law and Order is not a reliable source on whether things are legal or not. Also, the closing sentence of the paragraph includes POV language which there is a consensus against using. I can only conclude that the additions to the section were intended to bias the reader. Kasreyn 11:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision and mutiliation

There are similarities and differences between "circumcision" and "genital mutilation".

Similarities:

• A natural part of the sexual organs is removed on purpose
• The procedure usually causes pain

Differences:

• After male circumcision, the ability to achieve orgasm is not impaired

And your evidence for this claim is? NB, the comparison Masters and Johnston made between circumcised and intact penises did not deal with orgasm (nor, indeed with the foreskin).--Hugh7 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• After female genital mutilation, the ability to have voluntary intercourse and/or achieve orgasm is significantly impaired

I think the above 4 points have been objectively established. I hope they are in the article, or will go into it. --Uncle Ed 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed, please read above. The available responsibly performed research on ritual female genital cuttings indicates that sexual function is not necessarily lost during these operations. Not that they don't have the potential to, but that they do not inherently damage one's ability to function sexually and, even in cases of infibulation, orgasm. I gave a list of sources above so you can check it out yourself. Mutilation is a teleogical and aesthetic assumption that must not be treated as an empirically, objectively discoverable reality. To use 'mutilation' in these contexts is just as meaningless as saying that a sculpture 'mutilates' marble. You have to prove that an act can be counted as mutilation and still produce accurate contextual information, which i don't think you can in this case. -FreddieResearch

I did read all that. You gloss over clitoris removal; some authorities assert that this affects sexual functioning. You also gloss over ability to have voluntary intercourse; clearly when the labia are sewn shut intercourse becomes difficult or impossible.

Let's try to separate advocaty from objective encyclopedia writing. Say rather that:

• some advocates of cutting defend it by asserting that sexual function is not necessarily lost during these operations or,
• they do not inherently damage one's ability to function sexually

By attributing claims to the advocates who make them, we can craft an article which does not take sides, but rather describes the dispute between the sides fairly. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed, i am not an advocate of this practice, I am an advocate of accuracy. If infibulated and clitorectomied women report the ability to orgasm then perhaps we ought to re-examine what we think we know about clitoral phisiology. These claims, incidentally, were actually made, not only by non-activist researchers, but by anti-circumcision scholars like Gruenbaum and Lightfoot-Klein, supported even by Scheper-Hughes who is very prone to sacrificing contextuality for moral outrage. To say this is not a defence of the practice, it is an argument against irresponsible research and colonialistic rightous indignation disguised as medical and human rights concerns.

On the issue of voluntary intercourse: this is an intersting issue that does need a discussion. In cases of infibulation the vaginal 'hood' is only de-infibulated after marriage. however, each society in which infibulation is practiced is also subject to anti-rape prohibitions. It would be more accurate to say that infibulation prevents intercourse before marriage, it in no way promotes involuntary intercourse, that is to say, it does not promote rape (indeed before a de-infibulation it is actually impossible to force an infibulated woman into involuntary intercourse).

I'm curious to know what side you think I'm taking. -FreddieResearch

Perhaps this is unprofessional or petty of me, but I am tempted to say that if there is a polemic going on, if sides need to be represented, then these sides are likely those who wish to present this issue accurately and those who want to present it morally. Accuracy can certainly inform morality, but i do not think that prima facie moral platforms can produce accuracy. -FreddieResearch

Impossible? I find that a little hard to believe. It would certainly be more difficult, but a sufficiently strong man with a sufficiently erect penis would probably be able to do it. If he had a knife, he could simply de-infibulate her himself. A gruesome idea, I know, but it can happen, and probably has. Infibulation can't take the place of real societal rape prohibitions and enforcement. A half-centimeter barrier of stitched flesh is no barrier at all. -Kasreyn 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose your right kasreyn, a knife could do it. At any rate I wasnt saying that infibulation replaces rape prohibitions but societies that practice infibulation also have rape prohibitions. That was intended to show that 'fgm' or whatever doesn't have much if anthing to do with involuntary intercourse. -FreddieResearch

Who says what

In and out of the article:

Many Arab Muslims interpret different passages as being in opposition to FGC, and believe the practice to be un-Islamic.

This is good general knowledge, and if it had a source it could stay in the article. Can someone google it or otherwise attribute it as a Point Of View or a solid fact? --Uncle Ed 23:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a solid fact. If I happen accross a good source i'll include it in the bibliography. I dont know who put that in there but from my own research that is good information. I wouldnt remove it. -FreddieResearch

Who Thinks They Shall Not FGC?

I thing they shall be no FGC's.

Gemini531 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Gemini531

An article's talk page is not an appropriate place for advocacy of a position. We are not here to discuss the merits of FGC. We are here to write a neutral article about it. Kasreyn 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 I don't care who the hell's opinion is of what; this article is just plain damn WRONG!  It says that FGC is the "official" term, well BULLSHIT- the Official term for the act described is termed FGM by the W.H.O.  Or is there a new place that claims the authority to set international standards?

FGM used in BBC headline / Switch FGC back to FGM

This article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5039536.stm is a headline from today's (6/2/2006) BBC News. That means that people all over the world are going to be looking up FGM, and when they come here they are going ton get this FGC bullshit. I petition for this article to go back to it's original title using FGM.

I aplolgize for being crass, but nobody here seems to respect anything I say. And, presuming that this will be ignored also... wtf ever.

pixiequix 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, pixie, but I can't find anything on the requested moves page. Did you forget to add this move request there?

Regarding the actual decision itself, I think I have to stay out of this one. Note, though, that you shouldn't go ahead and move the page until other editors have had a chance to weigh in. Kasreyn 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What does 'official term' mean? The people who practice it have all sorts of names for it, are they any less official than the WHO? To say only internat'l political bodies have a say over what is called what robs the actual actors in this discussion, the women who practice it, of their agency. FGM is a name for the phenomena among many many other names. If you type 'fgm' into the wikipedia search it takes you to this page, if you type "female circumcision" it takes you to this page. There is no point in moving it to a wholly different page under the heading 'fgm' except to promote a political opinion. If i had my way the title would be 'ritual female genital modification' at best, though even "female 'circumcision'" with marks around 'circumcision' would be far more accurate than the current title (incidentally the most popular term used in Anthropology, including among those who advocate against the practice). I agree that the page shouldnt be called "female genital cutting" but to call it fgm would be a neo-colonial step backwards, not fowards towards a more accurate understanding. - Freddieresearch

by the way i'm gonna remove 'official term' as complained about above. - freddie

OK. Based on a Google search, FGM is the most popular (1,600,000 hits, compared to 112,000 for FGC and 694,000 for FC). Based on a Pubmed search, however, FC is the most used in the medical literature (589 hits, compared to 433 for FGM and 37 for FGC). FGC does has the most neutral tone, however. When it comes down to it, I'd be happy enough to leave it as it stands, although perhaps we should note in the article that the WHO define it as FGM, since they are something of an authority, and that FGM is, in the West at least, the more popular term. Procrastinator supreme 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! - FreddieResearch

Pixie, I'm going to remove the move tag for the time being. I cannot find where you added it to the Requested Moves page, as is required for move requests. I look forward to your reply. Kasreyn 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WHO Study

I posted the following paragraph to the end of the medical consequences section, to discuss a recent WHO study which I think adds a significant concern to the list of possible medical consequences:

"A recent study by the WHO, published in the Lancet on the 1st of June 2006, has cast doubt on the safety of genital cutting of any kind. This study was conducted on a cohort of 28,393 women attending for singleton delivery at 28 obstetric centres in areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal and Sudan with a fairly high proportion of mothers having FGC. According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for type I, 32% for type 2, and 55% for type 3). Mothers with FGC type III were also found to have 30% more caesarean sections and a 70% increase in postpartum haemorrhage compared to women without FGC. It was estimated from these results and a rough estimate of the proportion of mothers in Africa with different kinds of FGC that in the African context an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies die during delivery as a result of this process."

Does everyone think this is a fair treatment of the study in question, and fair to include in the article? I've basically given the results as the WHO reported them, except for using "FGC" in place of "FGM"

Lancet is a great authority. I'd say we do this, lets put three studies together and that will give a good view of how medicine deals with this issue. We'll use the Lancet article, the Carla Obermeyer articles (1999 and 2003) in the MEdical Anthropology Quarterly that critiques the type of information produced above (though written before the lancet article it still seems very relevant) and also a recent article in the latest MedAnthQuartrly that maintains some very thoughtful ambivilence (sp?). So basically it will look like this "Lancet says FGC bad. Obermeyer says FGC probably not so bad. Latest MAQ on the fence." I'd be happy to organize this maybe next week. Whaddaya think? -freddieresearch

Go for it Procrastinator supreme 06:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Abu-Sahlieh Quote and PBUH

I have restored all quoted instances of the traditional "Praise Be Upon Him" to this paragraph. Note that including the traditional blessing is inappropriate in original encyclopedic content (as established at article Islam), but when we are directly quoting a source, such as Mr. Abu-Sahlieh, the exact words of the source must be reproduced. This is not showing any POV favoritism towards Islam as the blessing is clearly within quotations and ascribed to Mr. Abu-Sahlieh. Kasreyn 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have once again restored these after being removed again. If we are to quote a source, anything within quotation marks must be a direct quote, unless a lapse is indicated by ellipsis. Kasreyn 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And again. Kasreyn 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And again. Kasreyn 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And again. Anyone mind if I put an inline hidden comment in the article asking editors not to damage quotes? Kasreyn 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely correct to include PBUH in the event that the person being quoted used the phrase. Removing it, for what reason I can't imagine, is inaccurate and foolish. I am not a Moslem. Youssef51 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn is correct. Skinnyweed 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

no pictures?

trying to get a handle on the issue, i wanted to see what this was all about, visually. google images points to a picture on the swedish wikipedia. are we too shy to illustrate, or even diagram? i choose not to fix this myself, as i'm new to wikipedia and insufficiently familiar with community standards.

I inserted a picture taken from the Danish wikipedia. Rune X2 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to be prude about it, but I don't think thats the greates picture to have on the webpage for a number of reasons. 1) it is only representative of one form of 'fgm'. 2) this is not a scientific journal and we can assume that a great deal of vistors come, not for a medical interest, but a morbid fascination. This picture has a strong potential to fetishize the rite for those not practicing it. 3) This is a photo of an intermediate stage in the surgery and does not accurately represent an infibulated vagina. 4) As this is usually done for sacred reasons (religion, tradition, etc.), to display this in a non-academic public forum may be disrespectful to the girl who chose to go through with the rite. In sum, i am going to remove this picture. An anatomical drawing would be much more tasteful and informative. Please respond if you have any objections before you replace the photo. Thanks. ~FreddieResearch

Actually, the danish picture was in rather good taste, though I'd personally prefer to see it on a subpage. Such a subpage would not be in line with current practice, unfortunately. 1) Do you feel a need to represent all possible variations? If so, you will need a *lot* of pictures. 2) There is little indication that such images cause fetishes to develop, and one can infer an action to the contrary from the points on pornography and sexual crimes. 3) While it does not represent the end result, which there are photos available that do, it does represent the procedure, which is what the majority of the article focuses on. 4) One must assume that the people who added it to the danish page have considered these issues. Zuiram 05:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The girl who chose to go through with it? Excuse me? Are there many girls who choose to become mutilated with high possibilities of infection and death, not to mention everything else that goes along with it? We have many, many articles here on Misplaced Pages with photos that some people don't like for various reasons. This particular photo is also on the FGC articles of Misplaced Pages in other laguages; it has been accepted there and it has been accepted here. Just because someone finds it disturbing/gross/whatever is not a reason to censor it. Are you planning on removing the photos from the Circumcision article as well? People could certainly fetishize those too.

Actually, fetishes surrounding male circumcision, the byproducts of the process, and even removal of the penis itself, are readily available on the internet. Somewhat off-topic, though.

Who claims these girls are fully educated about the risks? Who says jewish boys are given a choice about circumcision? Parents make choices on behalf of their children, in accordance with social requirements of their area. Just like those who argue for gender assignment surgery for intersexuals (a standard practice in the western world) do so based on the need for a fixed gender identity and citing the social problems that could arise from genital ambiguity, it can be argued that this process (FGC) is a part of these people's identities, and that they will be socially stigmatized if it is not performed. And many of the arguments against it apply equally to said gender assignment surgery. Not that I'm condoning either.

In short, Misplaced Pages does not specifically aim to be centric to our culture or any other, and value judgements on the inclusion of such material should be solely on the merits of the material itself, in accordance with other articles that use similar materials. Not that I'm agreeing with this. Zuiram 05:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As to your point about it not being the only form, that is true. And when we find pictures that represent other forms, I'm sure they will be added. This is just the one we have at this point.

I am reinstating the picture, and I think that in the future it would be a better idea to get the opinions of other editors before deleting something like this. Thanks for understanding. romarin 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the procedure is disgusting and barbaric, but you'd be surprised at how often social pressure can convince people to make decisions not in their own best interest. The urge to conform to a peer group is very deeply ingrained in our species. And yes, there is at least one case on record, which I recently read about in the news, of a girl whose parents chose not to have her circumcised who did it to herself and died of blood poisoning. Why? The other kids were making fun of her and she believed no one would ever want her because her body did not conform to her culture's standards. That's how utterly we are slaves to our social conditioning. As to the picture, I'd say that shocking and disturbing as it is, it would be a double standard to include images of circumcised penises and not images of circumcised vulvas. Kasreyn 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a funny habit of assuming that 'third-world' women are uniquely saddled by social pressure and are unable to make their own decisions. Female circumcision is looked on very positively by most women in places where it is practiced. When performed on girls at the stage of development like the one featured in the picture, it is usually a voluntary procedure. If we are to say that somthing is involuntary merely because it is informed by local norms than surely the term 'voluntary' should well be discarded as all human decisions are made within informative social milieus. The reason why I am deleting the picture once again now before reaching a consensus is because I have a legitimate concern about its significance. Likewise, were the article, say, on African Americans and it included a photo of a black man getting his mugshot taken with little arrows indicating anatomical 'negroid' features, I would immediately delete it and then demand a discussion be held before reinstating the photo. I do not believe this photo aids in an accurate and non-pov understaning of the rite and is not an respectful to the millions of women who have undergone this procedure. No doubt there have been many cases of involuntary circumcisions, maybe thousands (not including baptismal rites which are neither voluntary nor involuntary but occupy a unique cultural space). There have also been millions of voluntary female circumcision procedures performed. A glance at the ethnographic record shows this very clearly. If you want to see with your own eyes girls excited about their future circumcision with full knowledge of the pain involved, see Hoffman, Barbara G. Womanhood and Circumcision: Three Maasai Women have their say. VHS. University of California.. I would also warn against the use of the word 'barbaric'. I know what you mean Kasreyn, and I know youre not rascist or anything, but the word is inherently bigoted and probably has no place in a post-colonial world. Another anecdote, to follow yours kasreyn, regarding female circumcision occured in Kenya in the 50s. To protest the british colonial administrators outlawing of the 'barbaric' practice, seven girls assembled themselves on the steps of the magistrate's offices and circumcised themselves with store-bought razors. There are lots of reasons women choose to do this when they choose to do this. The agency of these women ought to be respected. Please do not replace this picture until a discussion has been fully fleshed out. My concern that it is harmful to a genuine understanding and disrespectful to practicing women should, at least temporarily, override a desire to have a photo for the sake of having a photo. Photos are good tools, this tool, however, does not do the job that wikipedia is supposed to do. ~FreddieResearch

I also want to address the contention that to delete this pic but not the male circ. pic is a double standard. I do not believe this is true, male circumcision and female 'circumcision' are wholly unique phenomena. Its a mistake to compare them in basically all respects, medically, culturally, 'morally', etc. I do not see a double standard at all. I am treating 'fgm' as a single issue, quite removed from the issue of male circumcision. ~freddieresearch

It is my view that if a picture adds anything worthwhile to an article, it should be included in the article regardless of how many groups it offends. As for the rest of what you said, I was understanding, not agreeing, but understanding, until I read this:

"I do not believe this is true, male circumcision and female 'circumcision' are wholly unique phenomena. Its a mistake to compare them in basically all respects, medically, culturally, 'morally', etc."

First, it is never a mistake to compare two things because one can always learn somthing from it. In this case, a comparison yields many insights and I will compare them in the order in which you dismissed them.

Medically: Anatomically, Male and Female circmcision are somewhat similar. Male circumcision seems to confine itself to the prepuce and as much of the shaft skin as possible while female circumcision can involve as little as removal of the prepuce to everything short of removing the thighs. I have hypothesised that this is because removal of more of the males genitalia would render him impotent while the females remains fertile regardless. Cultures who practiced the more aggressive male circumcision would thus die out quite rapidly. Simplified to extremes, male and female circumcision are both exaples of removal of healthy erogenous tissues from a patient/victim who is in great likelihood either uninformed or oughtright nonconsenting. As to the act of circumcising itself, Male and Female circmcision differ greatly in this regard. Western medicine has become quite expedient at separating the male from his prepuce, and while the removal of more than just penile skin and mucosa is usually frowned upon, it happens. The science of female circumcision has been hot on the heels of male circumcision, (medicaid paid for clidorectomy until the 1970's I think) it has, however fallen far back in recent years.

Culturally: Male circumcision has been popular in many cultures for milennia, never gaining the overwhelming majority as it has in the US but popular in some areas. This was the only reason for circumcision until modern medicine started coming up with its own 'reasons'. Female circumcision has never enjoyed the popularity that male circumcision has, probably as a result of the gender imbalance in HIStory. Generally regions that practiced male circumcision also practiced some form of female circumcision.

Morally: 'removal of healty erogenous tissue' says it all. Some cultures look down on female circumcision without retaining the ability to compare it with male circumcision. Some cultures scorn both. Some cultures practice both and are offended at the thought of scorn.

Was this comparison a mistake? I consider my time well spent. You be the judge.Christopher 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You make some interesting points, but I would like to discuss one of them further. Forgive me, for I am going to have to venture a guess as to your beliefs, and if I am wrong, I apologize, but your use of the term "HIStory" leads me to believe you see a sex disparity in circumcision rates due to male chauvinism. Is this true? Because you seem to be implying that male chauvinism would cause male circumcision to become more prevalent than female, and I just can't see that. You will find that female circumcision is universally contained to extremely male chauvinist cultures, cultures in which females are considered to be inferior to males. In these cultures, the female genitalia are frequently seen as dirty or even ritually unclean, and natural, healthy female sexual urges are interpreted as sinful and evil. The inevitable solution is the removal of the offending parts, to ensure that females remain pure and sinless, because from the viewpoint of the patriarchy, they are incapable of controlling themselves and require strict intervention. And again, as I said to Freddie, I don't confine this to "other" cultures. Western culture has a strong dose of contempt for women, which we inherited from the Romans (for instance, "pudenda", the term for a woman's genital region, is Latin for "shameful thing"). Once ritualized and given religious approval, such traditions can become detached from their original purposes and continue long after the original compulsions that fed them have disappeared. This is why, as Freddie has pointed out, contemporary cultures that practise FGC are always quick to protest that they see the tradition as positive, and that there are many good "reasons" for it: the original reasons have been forgotten or are so primitive and superstitious that they prefer to dissociate themselves from them. Kasreyn 07:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was actually just referring to was what I perceive be chauvinistic historical coverage. As I am no historian, I will use an example from wikipedia. The FGC page contains practically no historical perspective concerning its topic outside of recent western medicine. Male circumcision however, has an article devoted entirely to its history. I have to assume that this great disparity is at least in part due to FGC not getting fair coverage in historical texts. What I was saying was that I did not feel that FGC was practiced at a different rate than MGC but that the historical coverage was uneven. I'm sorry my wording was so equivocal.Christopher 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but I for one don't assume that social pressure only applies to some other group... I did say "we" are slaves to social pressure. I personally feel male circumcision is equally unethical and useless (ie., it serves a ritual/cultural purpose and no other), but look at attitudes towards male circumcision in America - there are a lot of claims as to why it's done, but when questioned as to why they had their son circumcised, most responding parents say it was so their son wouldn't be "different". It's the same pressure towards conformity, operating within people who think themselves "superior" to those "savages" in Africa - the same blind, unreasoning drive to be like everyone else no matter what the real cost and no matter what the scientific facts may say. The people who obey these urges rationalize them by coming up with "reasons" which sound nicer than "I had my daughter's genitals cut off because everyone else does it". The trouble is that we lack an objective viewpoint from which to reliably identify these "reasons" as rationalizations, and so your point holds true in that we must treat their stated reasons as if they really are the reasons, when it is clear, to me at least, that the overriding reason is the drive to conform. Ie., for purposes of NPOV, in the article we must accept their stated "reasons", unless we have a quote from a notable and reliably-sourced expert saying otherwise.

And if I offended you with the use of the word "barbaric" I apologize, but I'm not going to stop using the term. I have nothing against African people or any people who believe this, and I have no intent to insult them. However, I would not be true to myself if I lied about my feelings about this procedure. I cannot be silent in the face of harm and retain my self-respect. You may rest assured that I will not insert my personal views into the article. I would never add a description like "barbaric" to the article.

I also do not understand why you feel the two rituals are so dissimilar. Are they not both rituals that are widely agreed to have little to no medical benefit? Are they not both typically carried out on people too young to decide wisely for themselves? Do they not both remove functional and ennervated genital flesh, or at least flesh whose function and ennervation is hotly debated? Is not the efficacy, morality, and ethicality of both procedures also hotly debated? Are not both procedures examples of battlegrounds between biomedical ethics and traditional values? I see far more parallels than differences.

As to the picture, I do not particularly care for it, but is it not informative? Does it not provide information which text cannot easily convey? My understanding of WP policy is that information trumps sensitivity here, see WP:NOT censored. Best wishes as always, Freddie, Kasreyn 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret now using the word 'compare', i ought to have said 'equate'. Of course, you are right to say that comparing male circumcision and female circumcision can yield a useful discussion. I will forego a reply to the similarities and differences of the two in this paragraph (lets open a new discussion page with that as the header) and focus purely on the photo. If we are to accept that a photo's ability to inform trumps any concerns with sensitivity (which i do not think are wholly seperate concerns), the pic should still be removed. The photo does not accurately represent an infibulated vagina, but rather a vagina in an intermediate, pre-healing stage. Moreover, as the sole visual representation of the entire FGC phenomenon (which is in actuality myriad unique phenomena united only by a general anatomical point of focus and vague notions of traditionalism), it gives, not only an incomplete sense, but a wholly misleading one. This image is not a circumcised vagina as a visitor will no doubt assume, but it is rather a vagina halfway through the process of infibulation. The infibulated vagina in its finished state is a smooth hood of skin with a small hole for expulsion of waste, the hole of course being widened after marriage. This photo conveys none of that information. If it must be included, it should not be included until it can be accompanied by an accurate and more complete visual context. Secondly, from what has been said in defense of this photo, it is clear that you yourself do have a very particular and passionate POV on this issue. Can you honestly tell me that your feelings on this subject aren't a powerful motivator in the selection of this particular image? It is clearly a photo that will inspire a 'mutual yuck' reaction that could well impede any interest in exploring this topic from the perspective of its practitioners. Once again, Christopher, I caution against assuming women who volunteer for this procedure are ignorant of its effects (which are far from clear even to western science, though the WHO will tell you otherwise). This is a sacred process, whether or not you like it, and an accurate image ought to be able to convey that sense as well. If it cannot, it simply cannot be said to be an accurate or NPOV representation. I do not believe it conforms to wikipedia standards of informative-ness. I will await a response and will remove it again (hopefully for good) on tuesday or wednesday, unless my concerns about its ability to inform accurately have been well-enough adressed. ~FreddieResearch

Interesting, but I think it is the wrong reason to remove the picture. The term Female Genital Cutting refers to amputation of any part of the vulva. It is simply ridiculous to say that this picture does not represent FGC because that woman clearly had a part of her vulva amputated. I think that a picture of a healed infibulated vulva would be an excellent addition to the page and I would fiercely defend the addition of a picture of a clidorotomy, -ectomy, or any other variation in which a part is amputated to the page. I also feel that this picture should not be excluded from this page simply because the subject's sutures had not yet healed. I welcome you to write a lengthy description to explain to the reader how this woman has been infibulated and her wounds have not yet healed. As to the POV issue, anyone who claims that they do not have a POV is lying. I do have a strong POV, however this page is not about my POV, it is about FGC. I can honestly say that my feelings were not a motivator for defending this picture. I would welcome a different picture, however if another, better picture were available, I would want the article to still contain this picture at the bottom because it shows what infibulation looks like before it heals. This might help someone considering infibulation with what to expect immediately. Like with a person considering liposuction, where if they were really fat their skin hangs really loose for a while and then tightens up. A picture of later after wouldn't show what this looks like. The skin hanging off picture may be gross, but it is not a deterrent, it simply shows them what to expect. As to the shock value, this is not the same as when abstinence proponents show pictures of infected genitals with the implication that sex equals infected genitals when in fact the probability of a chronic infection is slim. If a woman chooses(or decides not to avoid being forced) to be infibulated, her vulva WILL look similar to this picture at some point. Concerning the rest of your points, I don't really think they can be represented by photographs at all. How exactly do you plan to express sensation with a photograph? I welcome you to provide a better selection of photographs but this is the best we have at the moment. A good enough photograph is better than no photograph.Christopher 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Freddie. As always, you make some good points. I wasn't aware that the image was inaccurate; either the caption should be changed to indicate that it represents a vulva only partially circumcised, or it should be removed. I'd like to note that it was not I who added the image and I only argued for its inclusion because I was under the impression that it was informative. I have no desire to use its shock value to undermine NPOV. If the image is inaccurate or uninformative, it should go, or possibly be given a more accurate caption to avoid misleading the reader. I begin to see that I lack the necessary knowledge to make a judgment on whether the photo is informative or not, so I'll leave it to others. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As a temporary compromise i am going to move the photo down to the infibulation section with a better explanation. If i manage to find a better photo or diagram we will revisit this discussion. ~FreddieResearch

Had to do it again... please do not move photo back to the header until you engage in the discussion here. Thanks, Freddieresearch 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Freddieresearch

Possible Edit to Clitoridotomy Section

While reading this section I noticed that in the anecdote about the conversation between Mohammed and Um Habibah the words 'Praise Be Upon Him' are repeated after each mention of Mohammed's name. I understand that this is common in Islamic writings, and that Muslims are obligated to say it after speaking the name, however I am not sure if this gives an impresion of neutrality. I think that a balence between the curent state of this section and a religion-free version could be reached by limiting the phrase 'Praise Be Upon Him' to it's first occurance only, which is curently linked to an explination page, or by replacing the phrase with 'Peace Be Upon Him' which I believe is also aceptable and has a more neutral tone. What say you? --Wirewood Shadow 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The words are used in a direct quote. Any change to the words would harm the integrity of the quote.Christopher 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained the purpose of leaving these edits in, higher up on this talk page. If you wish, we can quote Mr. Abu-Salieh using ellipsis ("...") to highlight only the important parts of his quote. However, everything within direct quotes must be accurate. The abbreviation "PBUH" is generally considered acceptable by Muslims, from what I've seen. Kasreyn 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the former point of Wirewood Shadow, PBUH is unacceptable. I added this quotation to the article and can assure all that in its original form, there was no PBUH following the name of Muhammad. I think it absurd that somebody felt they had a right to add it and when I removed it once, it reappeared the next day. Misplaced Pages is surely no place for religious expressions of this nature, especially when editing a quotation in which those words were no longer originally there.

Muhammad is not my prophet and as this quoatation should make clear, is no great moral teacher either - he supported female genital mutilation, as well as male genital mutilation, which is the reason that most Muslims men and some Muslim women are mutilated today. I will also remind those who like to add PBUH to his name, that Muhammad married a nine year old girl with whom he shortly consummated the marriage.

I hereby give notice that I intend to remove the PBUHs again, and will be most disappointed if they reappear a second time.

--Amyers 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I may have made a mistake in restoring them, then. The earliest time I can remember reading the quote, it had the PBUH's in it. I do not have a copy of the book cited. I assumed that because the PBUH's were listed in an older edition of the page, that they were added by the original editor who added the quote. Now I see that you were indeed the originator of the quote and that it lacked the PBUH's. So, I will remove them. Sorry about this, but please note that those who removed them did so without any edit summary so I had to assume it was vandalism to remove them. Kasreyn 19:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh wrote 'Praise Be Upon Him' in his book, then inside of the quotation marks, we have to include Praise Be Upon Him. I don't think that PBUH is an acceptable alternative but I am not an expert on that. I am going to leave the article as you edited it because, as I can't find the original quote, I am going to assume that you are correct about the erroneous addition.Christopher 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am certain that the original text had no PBUH, neither Peace Be Upon Him nor Praise Be Upon Him. If anybody would like to check the source, go to the following website:

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/#Chapter2

Go to "3. The Sunnah"

--Amyers 09:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

to Haham hanuka

Please do not revert modified page until you have adressed the pre-existing discussion under the heading "No Pictures?" above. The photo remains on the page, but i have moved it to the infibulation section of the page because it illustrates the first half of the infibulation process. I have also modified the caption to make the picture more accurate. Once again, it is still there, you just have to scroll down a little to see it. Do not replace until you respond here in the talk page. Freddieresearch 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pixiquix's articles (moved from top to here)

Check out this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5039536.stm This is evidence of the common cultural usage. Or is the terminology used in a BBC headline not reflective of what the common usage is? If nothing, it clearly demonstrates the mindset of those wanting to restrain the page under the heading FGC.

This article shows that its banned in africa - cause may cause death: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5109094.stm

Article bias

Seems to be say that fgm only occurs or mostly occurs in sub-saharan africa. I ask people to look at this because it primarily occurs in the muslim arabian nations and not sub-saharan africa. Egypt has the highest rate on the map and it is not in sub-sahran africa. I know people are going to object to me so I amtelling you now to go research it because you will see it is a Islamic practice or practice done in primarily islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and not subsahran africa

It is commonly practiced in Kenya, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Those are the three I've studied specifically, other contributors can fill you in on the rest. The last Medical Anthropology Quarterly has a great article on the current role of female circumcision in Kenya. Read Shell-Duncan and Hernlund's Female Circumcision in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change for examples on Sierra Leon and Nigeria. I dont remember other sources for other Sub-saharan nations, can anybody help him out with that? I believe the article does acknowledges the frequency of the practice in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia and Egypt. ~Freddieresearch

The article goes in to a fair amount of detail in the areas of practice section. It mentions a number of Muslim countries. There also appears to be a fairly vast difference between the Muslim & Arabic cultural practice which primarily appears to be clitoridotomy whereas the African practice is primarily infibulation. A number of experts have also come to various conclusions which are discussed. If you believe you know more then these experts, you're welcome to publish your findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If you believe we have missed something, you're welcome to tell us which references you know of to back up your claims... Nil Einne 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Umdat as-Sālik

Is there any significance to the fact that Umdat as-Sālik (Reliance of the Traveler) says that circumcision for men and women is obligatory? It follows the Shāfiī madhhab, and the commentary also discusses how the Shāfiī position differs from that in the Ḥanafī and Ḥanbalī madhāhib. Kitabparast 20:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout Problem

In the section on clitoridotomy, these two paragraphs:

From the late 19th century until the 1950s, it and other more invasive procedures, including excision of the clitoris and infibulation were practiced in Western countries to control female sexuality, and were advocated in the United States by groups like the Orificial Surgery Society until 1925. Doctors advocating or performing these procedures claimed that girls of all ages would otherwise engage in more masturbation and be "polluted" by the activity, which was referred to as "self-abuse" .

Through the 1950s, some doctors continued to advocate clitoridotomy for hygienic reasons or to reduce masturbation. For example, C.F. McDonald wrote in a 1958 paper titled Circumcision of the Female ,, "If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female? I have operated on perhaps 40 patients who needed this attention." The author describes symptoms as "irritation, scratching, irritability, masturbation, frequency and urgency," and in adults, smegmaliths causing "dyspareunia and frigidity." The author then reported that a two-year old was no longer masturbating so frequently after the procedure. Of adult women, the author stated that "for the first time in their lives, sex ambition became normally satisfied." In the U.S., the last documented clitoridotomy to reduce sexual activity occurred in 1958. The procedure was performed on a 5-year-old girl, reportedly to stop her from masturbating. Justification of the procedure on hygienic grounds, or to reduce masturbation, has since declined. The view that masturbation is a cause of mental and physical illness has dissipated since the mid-20th century .

These two paragraphs seem to be refuring to both clitoridotomy and/or clitoridectomy. They might belong more in the clitoridectomy section.

Somehow related to Famine?

I don't fancy with the popular cultural explanation of FGM. Because if you look at the map carefully, the areas where FGM is often exercised are Sub-Saharan countries. I think this must be due to the famine. Local people might have adopted this tradition in order to curb the birth rate by controling the female sexuality, so that the already lacking natural resources would be sufficient to the living people. Any ideas?

You might find it worth your while to read WP:NOR. Such speculation may be interesting, but doesn't really contribute much because it can't be used in the encyclopedia. Kasreyn 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the article you provided for me; however, I didn't mean to edit and add my argument. I thought there might be someone to verify this famine argument. Because I have read that in "primitive" tribes there can be "cruel" but essential measures (like even killing the infants) are taken to control the population growth. FGM might have been one of them.

Missing Picture

Where is the image 'infibulation.jpg'? Did it get deleted? It is not present on old versions of the page(it is a redlink) or on the swedish wikipedia(I am still investigating this). How did we get it copied from the swedish wikipedia in the first place and how do we get it back? Christopher 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My error, it is on the Danish Misplaced Pages. I'm going to transfer it, but I have to figure out how first.Christopher 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The original picture was deleted. Nice of them to tell us.

• 06:26, 4 September 2006 Angr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Infibulation.jpg" (In category Images with unknown source as of 5 July 2006; not edited for 54 days)

Christopher 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to the picture is now an interwiki link to the original danish picture. I can't make it an inline picture however, so we'll need to ressurect the picture on our wikipedia.Christopher 20:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can probably make a new one. Give me a few days. --- 164.107.252.198 06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

how are you going to "make one"? heh.. the penis circumsm artcle contains lobbed penis pictures.. too many actually, i believe their should be a picture of what FGC would look like because pictures are worth more than a perfectly written article-- the article describes what it is, how it became, ect.. but a pictures gives the reader a diffenet idea what it is.. seriously. -toomuchdetail

FGC practiced by doctors in the USA until 1958

This seems incorrect. I seem to recall reading that Medicare(or Blue Cross or whoever) covered FGC until the mid seventies. Even assuming that no doctors took advantage of this coverage, surely the 1996 bill outlawing FGC would have been significantly less necessary if there was not a chance of a doctor performing FGC on them. Christopher 15:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AHA! I didn't read that just anywhere, I read it in this article!

It was sometimes practiced in English-speaking nations well after the first half of the Twentieth Century, ostensibly to stop masturbation. . Blue Cross Blue Shield paid for clitoridectomies in the U.S.A. until 1977

Whis figure is correct? Reference 11 leads to a website that does not seem to have the facts, but I seriously doubt that clitorectomy stopped in 1958. I wouldn't be suprised if one could still 'get the snip' by simply finding a really old doctor.Christopher 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote on the 1990's bill you mentioned:

"Also on the National Level, Congresswoman Patricia Shroeder introduced H.R. 3247, a bill to outlaw FGM in the United States in the fall of 1994. The bill was then combined with The Minority Health Initiatives Act, H.R.3864. This bill was then combined with H.R. 941 on February 14, 1995, which was to be cited as the "Federal Prohibition of

Female Genital Mutilation of 1995."

To Do:

I think there is a template for this kind of thing, but this will do.

• The all 42 refercences need to have proper labels attached.
• The references need to be searched for duplicates. Seems like a job for a script.Christopher 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Main Page: ‘Circumcision’ to include Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)

I think a page should be set up just called Circumcision. Male and female should both be on these pages. References to the mutilation of child genitalia to reduce sexual pleasure (although not ending any pleasure, the procedure greatly reduces sensitivity) should all be on one page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dab182 (talk • contribs) 11:20, October 2, 2006.

Both both the articles pertaining to MGM and FGC are quite large - they should really be cut into smaller articles as it is, not combined into the biggest article ever. Besides which, the reason this page is called FGC and not female circumcision is because circumcision is only one example of Genital Mutilation.Christopher 19:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly they're too large to combine, but you're mistaken about why this page has the name of FGC. In fact, an NPOV encyclopaedia cannot describe either procedure as mutilation. For more info, see the 'questionable title' section above. Jakew 19:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

FGM and male Circumcision have completely different social dynamics. Combining them would require spending more time defining the differences rather than the similarities. Also male circumcision fulfills a valid medical function, which female mutilation does not. Atom 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that while male circumcision can (in such cases as phimosis be indicated for a medical purpose, but that it is a subject of heated debate as to whether routine male infant circumcision is medically valid. And, of course, the majority of male circumcisions are performed as routine infant circumcisions. I agree that there are somewhat different social dynamics involved in the procedures, but not so different that the two could not be dealt with fairly. The real trouble would be how to balance and edit such a page to prevent it from becoming a 200kb+ monster. Material would have to be fairly, and carefully, offloaded to related articles, which poses a tough challenge for gaining consensus. I'd personally prefer to see both male and female circumcision dealt with as an overarching topic, but I tremble in fear at the work that would be required to do it right. Kasreyn 00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the concerns about size. If you were to do it, you could have an article that was brief, and gave a general overview of the complete topic, and each area. And then a link to each of the sub-articles. That might actually be beneficial in that some of the things in the circumcision article could be broken up into sub-articles too, in a kind of tree. Maybe even arguments for, and arguments against in different sub-articles might help things. Personally, by objection to putting them together is that circumcision has a valid medical use, where female circumcision/mutilation is totally unnecessary. The primary reason for circumcision is (flawed or not) for better medical health. The primary reason for mutilating women is to prevent them from having sexual pleasure. Vastly different. Doctors do not say that male circumcision is not medically valid, they say that the risks outweigh the benefits slightly, and that it should not be a routine medical procedure, leaving the decision to the parents. I'm not advocating it, only saying that there are medical benefits for male circumcision, and none for FGM. Atom 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would really like you to define 'better medical health'. The one risk that never seems to get taken into account is the loss of the foreskin and I still don't understand why. When a person with a gangrenous foot is offerered amputation, the value of the foot is weighed against the immediate risk of death from the gangrene. The foreskin is always addressed as if it has no intrinsic value and thus other risks, like bleeding or infection are considered. The issue I have with the proposed merge is the definition of 'female circumcision'. Is 'female cicrumcision' == 'clitoridotomy' or is 'female circumcision' == 'any cutting of the female genitals'?. It seems that the definition changes from person to person although this article chooses the latter. Is this the correct choice in light of the proposed merge? I agree that the heirarchy of the sub-pages must be decided in advance for this to work. I proposed such a tree about ten months ago, I will find it later. If we decide that merging is the correct action(I would support it), the amount of work required will be daunting but I think that if we are able to do the work, the resulting articles will be much better than what we have now.Christopher 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision/Archive_7#Aftermath_of_attempts_to_merge_Circumcision_with_FGC

That isn't quite right for what we are talking about, but it is a good place from which to start.Christopher 21:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Can I please request that you take the circumcision debate somewhere else? In my experience, it goes on forever with no end in sight, and it's not beneficial to have it here. 2) I doubt that there will be a consensus to merge, but if you're serious in proposing it, you should probably request input at Talk:Circumcision, too (ideally directing readers here so that we don't have two parallel discussions). Jakew 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also consider a circumcision template(the kind that looks like an index on the right). That might give a similar effect in unifying the concepts with a lot less work.Christopher 06:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's been tried previously. It didn't succeed because it violated NPOV (that is, caused the article to implicitly endorse the POV that the subjects were comparable). If you can think of a way of doing this that is truly neutral, I'd be interested to hear it. Jakew 10:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ChristopherK. Atom, I suggest you do some further reading on the history of male circumcision advocacy in the United States. It was frequently billed as a way to stop "self-abuse" - a contemporary euphemism for masturbation. That is to say, its own proponents freely admitted that their goal in pushing the surgery was to remove sensitive erogenous flesh from infant males to prevent socially-unaccepted masturbation later in childhood. As social mores have changed, the ostensible "reasons" given for routine male infant circumcision have changed to keep up with the time (ie., now there are a lot of claims of medical benefits that are hotly disputed in the medical community and seem, to me at least, to be full of hot air). The one factor that remains consistent throughout each generation of male circumcision advocacy is the traditionalist argument, and I suggest that this is where the true motivation lies. The only difference between the "reasons" given for male and female circumcision is that certain African societies are still at the stage America was at when its social mores were dictated by the likes of John Harvey Kellogg. The article on him would be a good place to start learning about America's unfortunate habit of drastic solutions to non-problems. Kasreyn 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

JakeW was correct in suggesting that this is not the place for that discussion. I was not offering my opinion, but stating what the predominant view of Doctors seems to be(currently). I was not trying to justify male circumcision, only suggesting that it is, in fact, different than FGC and FGM. Regardless, an integation is possible. I think to do that, and to get the very vocal people from both sides involved, it would be good to have an outline, or an example of what the main article might look like. If you like, I can provide a location on the Sexology and Sexuality Project for people to work on a rough draft of the top level article/overview in the tree. Also as part of that we could discuss what sorts of guidelines we want to use in working on the project (to avoid conflict). For instance, to provide an article off the main article for circumcision opponents and proponents. Reiterate that we wand facts and not opinions, and to assume good faith. In this way, providing NPOV rough draft of the page before suggesting the integration would allow for a better chance of success. Atom 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for all the comments, just thought I’d put the idea out there and see what you had to say – which was quite a lot!

The Circumcision main page has a link here anyway so at least they are recognised as similar even if its as HGC – (Human)

As for all these medical reasons, well, you would not perform an operation for a cleft lip if the patient didn’t have one - just like one shouldn’t perform circumcision on someone who doesn’t require it –having phimosis is a valid medical reason, but as for it being cleaner!! Wash yourself - lol – dave London – thanks--Dab182 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move Duja► 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Female genital cutting → Female Genital Mutilation — The practice is widely known as "Female Genital Mutilation" which gets 969000 hits on Google while "Female Genital Cutting" only gets 133000 hits. Thus I requested that the page be renamed to "Female Genital Mutilation". CltFn 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC) The United Nations and Amnesty International officially refer to it as Female Genital Multilation ], ]. Thus is makes sense that we would follow the naming convention of authoritative and officially recognized global institutions. updated by --CltFn 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support The practice is widely known as "Female Genital Mutilation" which gets 969000 hits on Google while "Female Genital Cutting" only gets 133000 hits . Rename to "Female Genital Mutilation".--CltFn 12:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Sorry, Misplaced Pages needs to conform to NPOV policy. Specifically, that means "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." The popularity of the term used for the title of the article is thus less important than it's neutrality. Jakew 13:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Female genital mutilation is not a neutral term. And while I strongly oppose the procedure, I don't think Misplaced Pages should take a stand on it already in the title. The mere frequency on the net simply mirrors the fact that the procedure is (fortunately) highly debated today. And generally, everyone searching for Female Genital Mutilation is redirected to this article, so nobody is "losing information". --Ibn Battuta 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Mutilation" is clearly a loaded term, tacking away from the objective of NPOV, not towards. The redirect is sufficient. Ford MF 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - this would move to a non-NPOV term. BlueValour 04:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Both Female Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation are POV terms, Female genital cutting is the best NPOV way around this. --Irishpunktom\ 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Actually the United Nations has begun to use the term "Female Genital Cutting" now rather than the term "Female Genital Mutilation" that they had originally used. This term gets' 1,160,000 hits on google. Your assertion that FGM is used by the UN and your assertion that FGM is more widely known than FGC are both false. The assertion that Amnesty International calls it FGM is correct. The U.S. Dept of Health and Human services calls it FGC. Atom 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if we have to make up our own new term for an article, WP:NPOV always trumps WP:NAME. Redirects for all disputed terms, plus an overview of the different possible names in the opening section are more than enough to get our readers to the right article and understand why is might not be located exactly where they thought they'd find it. This should be an official policy, but it isn't, so there are hundreds of other articles in a similar situation. (If anyone wants to fix that, there's a BIG project for you.) Unfocused 06:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Current NPOV title should not be changed. Christopher 06:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Addition

• Support Please don't try to rename things that already have common, technically and medically correct names just because you don't like a word. My reasoning: (sorry it is long, but I think all points are seperately important. Please consider each).

definition of mu·ti·late from (emphasis added, of course): 1. to *injure*, *disfigure*, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts 2. **to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.** OR Mutilation in Online Medical Dictionary: "*Disfigurement or injury* by *removal or destruction* of a conspicuous or *essential part of the body*."

While "Mutilation" may elicit a negative emotion it is both accurate and appropriate in a linguistic and medical sense. "Cutting" on the other hand is both wrongly insufficient and disingenious (see below). Amputation, cancer, haemorrhage, decapitation and many other words also accurately and correctly used to describe forms of damage to a body may elicit a similar emotional response - that is because we don't like thinking about the damage, not because they are improperly biased words. In fact, it is just that they do convey that there is damage done that they affect us so. It is not a *moral* judgment, which is where this must remain neutral. "Horrible female genital mutilation" would not fly, but FMG is correct. I don't see how it can be argued that cutting in these forms does not "injure" the genitals. Removal of the clitoris certainly fits the second definition! If you think otherwise I suggest you poll the women you know and ask them if it should be considered an essential part. Essential for what? How about clitoral orgasms? There are multiple types of orgasms, that is just one. Retained ability to have other types does not at all imply the clitoris is not essential for clitoral orgasms.

FGM is the term used ~nine times more frequently in the literature (e.g. 459 uses vs. 51 in pubmed), declared propper by the WHO and the rest of the UN, and is the term people will be looking it up by.

Lastly, "cutting" is disingenious. When used in reference to wounds it strongly implies a linear penetration, rather than amputation or the other various wounds this involves. Cutting also implies to some degree that it could heal to original or near-original state, but, again, it often involves amputation and/or grave scarring that is intended to close off the vagina. If your hand was cut off in an accident I doubt you would even begin to understand why someone insisted that mutilate was an incorrect term and insisted you say you "cut your arm", even though they could show you definitions of cut that suggest it could be used. --Fitzhugh 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(Moved by Jakew 09:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)) Jakew 09:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Both sides of the story

I would be interested in NPOV (neutral point of view) of the article.

IMHO, it is damaged to some point, by calling also male circumcision a "mutilation". The difference between male and female circumcision should be stated clear. We ought to go past shame and false morals and scientifically and theologically skim over the matter.

Male circumcision is a sign of Abraham's covenant. It's meaning could be in doing something ritual to male penis, so it is no longer like the one of Adam, so it's function should be dedicated to Jahweh, and no longer to the one whom Adam and Eve listened and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Sacrifice for doing this must include blood. This does not severe ability to enjoy sex, but symbolically represents dedicating sexuality and offspring to LORD.

The religions demand male circumcision on 8th day. St Paul says circumcision is no longer required in NT as we have the better sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Female circumcision is never mentioned in Bible, neither I have found the reference in Qor'an, for the latter not being an learned scholar.

We should technically have both terms: female circumcision and female mutilation. Surgical removal of clitoris is quite clearly the latter (it is removed, not circum-cised, cut around). Rationale: male circumcision does not reduce man's ability to enjoy sex (many witness the contrary)- top , most sensitive, part of penis is not removed, rather an unimportant part of skin with function as important or less than appendix.

With female removal of clitoris, the woman's ability to enjoy sex is severed, therefore it is mutilation, not circumcision. It is henceforth a very cruel act.

Female circumcision as a term would define operation similar to male circumcision, as a symbolic rather than harmful act, as a religious ritual performing removal of insignificant part of female genitalia's skin which would not reduce the ability to enjoy sex, but would include letting of blood for ritual purposes. I know I will be attacked for this, but a religious rite cannot be banned, for it will continue in hidden, a non-harmful substitute must be found, or re-invented.

(Reader may ask with right: "Why keep anything Scripturally not requested and seemingly barbaric?", yet a girl may not be actually saved for life by merely "saving" her from clitoral extraction - she could and on average would be stigmatized, considered demonic, uncircumcised, less worth tahn circumcised, banned from marriage with circumcised man, considered predestined for fornication, promiscuity & prostitution and used that way. Some African religions will demand doing something that includes letting of blood to female genitalia to pronounce her clean, and her sexuality and offspring dedicated to good spirits instead of to demons. Of course, having Lamb of God, we have no need for such sacrifice or ritual, and it will even be found spiritually damaging for a Christian girl, same as St Paul considered circumcision for Christian men ("If you circumcise yourselves, you must fulfill all Law!").)

Similar as top of penis is not removed, female clitoris should not be removed, but rather some functionally (and aesthetically) unimportant part of genitalia skin, for the practice to be considered circumcision, not mutilation. Clitoris is no doubt an organ created by God Himself and not by Devil so harming it without a valid reason (and there seems not to be medical one in these practices) is quite clearly a sin. Clearly thereof will follow the difference between circumcision and genital mutilation, while one may find both practices existing.

Consequently and finally, woman's virtue would be very poor and sad if it would be based on inability to feel sexual pleasure rather than on spiritual strength and willful self-restraint. -- Mtodorov 69 14:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and think the article, while in need of some small fixes, is admirably close to NPOV. In any case, theological arguments are inconsequential in terms of modifying Wiki articles. Ford MF 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Ethipia should't be on there. the map is not correct. Ethiopia is almost 90% christian and do not particippate in this ritual. The only Ethiopians that might participate are the Islamic ones and that is 10% or less of Ethiopians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.151.151 (talk • contribs)

So basically what you're saying is "some Ethiopians practice FGC"? Also please sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~. Ford MF 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you read the following page http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10098.htm, you will find that 72.5% of women in Ethiopia (from statistics taken from 65 of the 80 tribes in the country)have undergone some form of female genital cutting. The person who made the observation that Ethiopia is 90% Christian (not correct as the stats are more like 45-50% Muslim, 35-40% Christian) is also claiming in their statement that ONLY Muslims practice female genital cutting, also another incorrect assumption. Female genital cutting is a tradition going back to the Pharaohs of Egypt and the reasons it is still practiced today amongst many different African groups, regardless or race, religion or culture ranges from many different reasons including but not limited to traditional reasons (because it has always been done, because the mother of the child had it done, coming of age ceremony) to social reasons (increases a girls marriage prospect, is closely linked to the honor of the family, men are afraid to marry a women who has not undergone FGC as it may mean she is not a virgin) to self interest reasons (it is a source of income for the midwife/person doing the cutting, girls who do not undergo the cutting think that they will not be attractive to the opposite sex, men have a need to control the sexual behaviour of women). The reasons why FGC does still exist and continues to exist despite the increased awareness of its needlessness (in terms of the modern worlds perspective) or the health problems associated with it needs to be highlighted a bit more in the FGC wiki page. --BigMick101 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts ma'am

"The procedure was legally practiced by doctors in the United States until 1996,{{fact}} and is still common in many developing countries, some at rates exceeding 95%.{{fact}}"

Please cite this, or we will need to remove it. Atom 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

UN vs WHO

I added the World Health Organization to the list of organizations that call the practice FGM, even though the WHO is an agency of the UN. I think the WHO and the UN are distinct enough to merit their own mention. In fact, I'd be inclined to remove the UN and move the two references to the "Further Reading: Online" section, as both references are less policy and more circumstantial. Ciotog 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See discussions above regarding use of FGC versus FGM. Thw UN and WHO use both terms FGC and FGM, and neither is official. In many recent documents they use both terms. The article clearly discusses that the terminology (FGC vs FGC vs Female Circumcision) is not as important as is the open discussion and elimination of the practice. In order to claim that the UN and WHO "officially" support the term FGM, we would need a reference or citation to prove and support that. None of the four references given do that, they only show that both terms are used. The reason the the UN started using the FGC term in 1996 was because of the necessity to work locally with families and religious groups in countries where the practice of FGM takes place. Calling it what it is only alientates those groups instead of helping to facilitate communication, education, and furthering the goals of eliminating FGM. So, arguing and trying to push the usupported view that one term is "official" is counter productive and needless. Whatver one chooses to call the practice, most people work on the common goal of elminating it. The reason (see other discussions above) that we have a consensus on the article being called FGC is primarily for the reasons stated here. Whatever language one wishes to use, the goals are the same. Atom 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between explaining terminology (and who uses it) on one hand, and promoting one term. We should not do the latter, I completely agree, and there is no need or justification for using "official" in this context.

However, I don't see the harm in mentioning that the WHO use the term non-exclusively. Do you? Jakew 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think clearly that a citation could provided that the WHO actively uses the terms "Female Genital Mutilation", and "Female Genital Cutting". So saying that with a citation would be accurate. Personally, I prefer the term FGM for most situations, but I feel that there are situations where FGC is more diplomatic. (and so, more effective towards a given goal) Regardless of my feelings or preferences, the article should be accurate and cited. Stating that the UN and WHO have an "official" term would not be accurate. If there were some purpose in suggesting that one term was preferred over the other by the UN or an UN agency, (which I am not convinced is true) then I would suggest that the citation in the article clearly points the the jount WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement in 1997 titled "Changing a Harmful Social Convention:Female Genital Mutiliation/Cutting". Not only are both terms used actively and frequently in the document. Other recent documents from UN agencies are the same way, using both terms together frequently. Another example is the Donor's working group on Female Genital Cutting, comprised of membrs from WHO, World Bank, UNICEF, USAID, the public welfare foundation, and numerous private agencies who in their documentation use the term "female genital mulilation/cutting" or "FGM/C" or "FGM/FGC" rather than either term seperately.

There are some people who would prefer to use the term FGM, becauses it emphasizes the horror and terrible nature of the practice. Using "softer" terminology seems a compromise in order to keep from hurting some peoples feelings. As a feminist, and opponent of FGM/FGC I would agree. However, the goal is to stop the practice, not to be "right" in the use of terminology. If discussing the practice as Female Genital Cutting with religious leaders and parents of children in countries where it is practiced facilitates dialog and education, rather than alienation, then it seems pragmatic to me.

Our role, as editors of Misplaced Pages is often to put our personal feelings and opinions aside in favor of documenting things factually and providing citations and references for those things. In this case, clearly, there is no "official" term. If we were to follow the method of the UN, UNICEF, and WHO, then we would call the article FGM/FGC and in every instance where the practice is described, use the term FGM/FGC or FGM/C, rather than one or the other, as that is what they now do. Atom 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree with most of that. I am also inclined to think that, as an NPOV encyclopaedia, we should use neutral names where possible. To quote from one of the sources in the article: 'Women's organizations have argued that "female genital mutilation" is demeaning because it implies parents are "mutilators." The word "cutting" is more neutral, they say.' As a random thought, I suppose they're saying that by being neutral they're more credible and thus more effective in communicating the facts. I can't help but note that Misplaced Pages as a whole seems to share both their goals (credibility and communication, that is) and their approach. Interesting, yet off-topic.

I would certainly agree that there is as yet no evidence that there is an "official" term. Jakew 19:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In using the word official I was trying to convey to people coming to this page that although FGC is the only definition this article uses the reality is that ALL official documents issued by the WHO and UN refer to the practice as female genital mutilation (FGM). Yes, some UN documents may use FGC as well, but again ALL official documents use the term FGM. If you go to their prospective websites and type in FGM or FGC you will see these results - UN website: FGM = 812 hits, FGC=77 hits, WHO website: FGM= 432 hits, FGC = 6 hits. In my humble opinion I believe that makes the definition FGM the official usage by both organizations and the most important pieces of information about this ritual come under FGM for both organizations.

Also see the excerpt below taken from a website by the Africa Section of the Strategic Communications Division and created in cooperation with the UN Department of Public Information

Different strategies, one goal In their work on the ground, campaigners against the practice choose their language carefully. Women's organizations have argued that "female genital mutilation" is demeaning because it implies parents are "mutilators." The word "cutting" is more neutral, they say. But some organizations have maintained that a negative connotation is useful in order to deliver a message that the practice is harmful. The term "female circumcision," according to some experts, implies a misleading analogy with male circumcision, thereby obscuring the seriousness of its risks to women. Official UN documents use FGM, the earlier term, while some UN agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use both FGM and female genital cutting.

As the information about FGM/C on the net is often not updated or completely accurate, I agree that the information that is placed into the Misplaced Pages page should be accurate. As someone who has both experienced the culture of FGC as well as having had the Type II procedure performed on me when I was 10 years old, I was not impressed by the setup or the information provided by this wikipedia page. I have only known and called this procedure female circumcision, as taught to me by my family in The Sudan, and frankly if I wanted to learn anything more about this procedure I would find it very difficult to do so under FGC alone. In my personal opinion I found the page to be very confusing, especially with so many interspersed references to the US practice in the 50’s and it did not adequately address a lot of the more important questions about the practice ie the types of FGC that exist, the reasons for its practice or the impact on the women it happens to. This page needs a lot more revision and relevance added to it.--Kaylima 22:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that Amnesty International had 96 hits for FGM and only 2 hits for FGC - I think that says something about the importance of FGM to all of these organizations. --Kaylima 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kaylima: First, although we seem to differ on terminology, we are working towards the same goals. The first, I think, is elimination of FGM/FGC. The second, good and accurate articles on Misplaced Pages.

• Here is a United Nations document from September of 2006, titled "Humanitarian Situation in Somalia"

  Meanwhile, UNFPA with local NGO Somali Family Care Network, supported two roundtable discussions in September

• Here is a UN document titled "The World's Women, 2005" that has:

Population-based surveys have also been utilized in research on female genital cutting (FGC)13, a practice known to have harmful effects on girls and women and common in many societies in the northern part of sub-Saharan Africa, some societies in the Middle East and some diaspora communities in the West.14 Data on FGC has, for example, been collected in Yemen and 15 countries in Africa between 1989 and 2002 through a module in the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS)15

You are correct that the UN has many more documents that have just FGM, or a combination of FGM and FGC than just FGC references alone. I attribute that to the more recent usage of FGC or the combination of them both together. These two references show that some official documents use FGC or FGM/FGC.

On Misplaced Pages, when someone types FGM or "female genital mutilation" it gets redirected to this article. So, I don't think that people will have trouble finding it.

As for Amnesty International, it is a NGO, and not affiliated with anything official at all. They do valuable work, but still are on their own. They may use the term "official", or may not, I don't know, but as they have no official standing, the term is not meaningful in that context.

And, as I have said before. Whether a term is or is not "official" is not relevant. What is important is that communication and dialog on the topic can occur by whatever name works. This article does use both terms, and discusses the issue thoroughly. I don't think that by changing the paragraph and removing official that I have blunted the language of what is said in the article at all, or caused any confusion in anyones mind as to the serious nature of the topic. Conversely, were we to add "official" I don't feel that it would make anyone reading the article to take the content more seriously. Even if it did, would it be appropriate for us to say that if it is not true? I think we all agree that improving the accuracy and relevance of this article is important. Atom 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Atom, I wasn't implying that I had a problem with the word "official" being removed from the page, but simply that in using the term I was trying to highlight that the FGM definition is going to be a more relevant internet search term for those interested in the work that has been undertaken by those groups. Also, the Misplaced Pages page can only scratch the surface on this very sensitive and controversial subject and it may be a first port of call for some people before they venture onto the net for more information, so it does need to highlight the point for those who may only know about this subject as female circumcision or, as you pointed out, the more recent usage of FGC. It could prevent access to information that has been around years before the term FGC was coined. Getting accurate information out there on this subject has been a problem for a while and I don't think that Misplaced Pages should be adding to that burden. Again, I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over terminology so much as it is important to make the page accurate and relevant. Cheers, --Kaylima 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly feel that lines like "Cultures that practice female genital cutting consider the alteration it causes to the female form to be the natural way for women to look. It is considered to be a mark of beauty and a transition into womanhood and marriage" (from the opening paragraph) to be much more objectionable than whether it's called FGC or FGM, but I'm glad the debate has been made an integral part of the article as it is an important consideration. I do fail to see how calling it something that isn't the most widely used term (by a large margin) is somehow "NPOV", I would argue quite the opposite as a matter of course even if the terminology wasn't loaded. Ciotog 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider this. It occurs to me that some people call abortion "baby murder" (or similar). Which term is more neutral? If Misplaced Pages's article was entitled "baby murder," might people think that Misplaced Pages was endorsing one view? I would think so.

Now, suppose for the sake of argument that "baby murder" was a more widely used term (although "abortion" was also used by several international organisations). Does that affect things? I would think not, and a redirect from the more common term would make the article easy to find.

By much the same reasoning, I would say that FGC is more neutral. Jakew 11:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When a culture has practiced something for hundreds of years, it is very difficult for them to change simply because the rest of the world believes that what they do is wrong. Beauty in every culture means something different, in the West being very thin is considered beautiful, and that has lead to eating disorders amongst girls, causing serious health problems and death and yet it still goes on despite the best efforts of different groups to highlight the dangers involved. FGC is considered vital to these cultures to maintain their daughters virginity and morality, an extremely important social issue, and although misguided, they have evolved into believing that the cutting practice makes them more beautiful because they are "perceived" as more moral. Judgments based on ignorance never helps, education is always important, on both sides of the fence. These people are not savages, but live in societies with rules, social expectations and hierarchies just like the West and although they do things differently from us, it doesn't make them less than us, especially the women who undergo the FGC procedure. They deserve our respect and support, and understanding. I feel that FGC is a perfectly OK term to be used by the Misplaced Pages page, so long it it highlights the importance of the FGM and FC terms by other groups undergoing research in this area. --Kaylima 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If the WHO and several other predominent organizations called abortion "baby murder", then I'd say that's probably the term to use :)

The problem with the abortion terminology debate as a parallel to this one is that abortion happens 50% of the time by chance, without any human interaction, whereas FGM/FGC is almost an entirely human-influenced activity. Furthermore, there's not much debate about the definition of "clitoris" or "vulva", whereas the definition of "human" is contentious.

What seems to be at stake (IMO) is that the editors who voted "Oppose" for the move to FGM have a bias against the medical term "mutilation" as it's applied in this case. The WHO (arguably a medical organization) accepts the term "mutilation". Some other organizations have accepted "cutting" (like the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services), but their FAQ includes seven references, only 2 of which use the term "cutting", so it appears they're applying their own bias (although they would likely argue that they're removing bias...)

Perhaps a comprimise would be to replace the redirect on FGM with more information about this debate, and then provide a link to FGC? Ciotog 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural and religious aspects

I can't say I'm happy with the 4 + 1 reasons given for this section. 1, 3 and 4 are pretty much the same thing. The first sentence of that paragraph is pretty loaded, as well. Is there a way to say it without being quite so dramatic? Ciotog 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

i have to agree on you with that,. Since nobody have cared to discuss this matter in the past 6 months, and since the section does not refer to any sources, i take the liberty to completly change parts of this section, with proper citations. anyone is free discuss how good or bad the edition is. --Broccolee 10:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

edition is completed, here is pasted what was deleted:

The main reasons for FGC can be categorized into four most common social justifications, and one financial:

1. The custom and tradition of becoming a woman involves this "rite of passage" from childhood to adulthood (ensuring she is good marriage material);
2. A desire to control women's sexuality (virginity, morality and marriageability);
3. A cultural practice that sometimes has a religious identification (a female's honor is a reflection on her entire family, and believing it is God's will);
4. Social conformity to the community;
5. FGC is a primary source of income for many midwives/practitioners, who propagate the practice.

I sincerly believe that the new composition is both more thorough and exhaustive. --Broccolee 12:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this passage because it is clearly POV and added for the very purpose of expressing that POV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Female_genital_cutting#Cultural_and_religious_aspects "Although the indication of this statement is grouping Muslims, Christians and Animist together, there is a great difference among the three religions and what the teach about FGC. For example, Islam condones the practice in many instances, whereas with Christianity it remains a practice among some converts who want to hold to their traditions in their respective societies even though it clearly goes against the teachings of the Bible."

I do think that the unqualified grouping of Islam, Christianity, and Animism in this context is also POV to a lesser extent, but the fact is somewhat mitigated by giving the three religions individual treatment in the following sections. Those sections could use some NPOV revising also, though. --70.156.89.28 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Position in article of terminology clarification

user:Ed Poor recently moved the terminology discussion to around half-way into the article, and I moved it back near the top. Regardless of your feelings about FGC vs. FGM, the terminology debate is a principle one with this issue and deserves some prominence in the article. Furthermore, someone unfamiliar with the practice of FGC might be confused as to why so many referenced websites refer to the practice as "Female Genital Mutilation" without that clarification coming sooner. This is similar to the reason why a note about disambiguation appears at the top of other wiki articles, rather than at the bottom or somewhere else. Please do not move this section without reaching a consensus here first. Ciotog 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Uncle Ed 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments from main article

Moved these from main article to talk page for discussion: <!-- I think the indexes are wrong. The article is about female genital cutting but this text to edit is about infibulation. Also clicking on female circumcision takes you to the female genital cutting article. --> <!--Do we have a source showing that the advocates deny whatever it is they deny?--> Joie de Vivre 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone reinstated these comments but I removed them again because they are here. They're not clearly written enough for anyone to do anything about them, I don't even know what the writer wants. Joie de Vivre 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced comments

Here are several comments without sources. They have been cut from the main article and placed here.

Cultures that practice female genital cutting consider the alteration it causes to the female form to be the natural way for women to look.

It is considered to be a mark of beauty and a transition into womanhood and marriage.

FGC is never performed out of hatred or anger, in fact quite the opposite is true as fathers and mothers fully believe that they have their child's best interest at heart.

When discussing the whole issue of sexuality and FGC many women are surprised that western, uncut women have any sensation between their legs or can enjoy the act of lovemaking.

To them to be cut is the "natural" way and in the same way that the West perceives that FGC is horrific, they feel that they would feel less feminine without it.

Hopefully, someone can source these. -- Joie de Vivre 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See the new section below, titled "Shweder's Fall 2000 Daedalus Article on "FGM"". It could be used as a source for most of those comments. -- Alan2012 05:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for fact check on range of forms of female genital cutting

I'm a newbie making my first post, so please forgive (and educate) any naive errors but I have a factual question that may be significant with regard to neutrality.

Personally, in the interest of disclosure, I find it difficult to maintain cultural relativism on the subject. I find the disclosure of my own bias useful here because that difficulty is so common among other Westerners and an analogous bias in the opposite direction may well be found among people from cultures where these rituals are practiced. As such, the overlooking of intermediate cases (gray, or at least grayer areas, if you will), is both likely and problematic.

I can only cite a class lecture (If this would be helpful, I can and will. I have a saved form peppered with AAA style citations of the same lectures but I don't know whether that would be useful or annoying. I can also ask my professor for her bibliography if that would help), which is why this is a request for information, rather than an edit or correction, but in my gender in cross-cultural perspective class, I learned that some forms involve cutting of the labia only, whereas the article seems at least partially to overlook those cases that lie between partial or total clitoridectomy and a ritual involving only gestures symbolic of cutting.

Another thing that my professor pointed out was that a more complex understanding of the phenomenon can actually help Western feminists to work with local feminists' efforts at reform. Western feminists taking an absolute stance on the issue can sometimes give short shrift to local women's agency, which can cause them to fail to recognize, and/or have difficulty working with, local women working in the same direction as themselves.

Randomundergrad 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

News

Eritrean government recently (5 april 2007) prohibited female genital cutting. I think this info should be added into the article.--Abdullais4u 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

fictional claims, by whom and why?

There is absolutely no factual/actual evidence of Female Genital Mutilation in Iran, ever, yet it is mentioned twice on the page. First it is defined as ‘circumstantial evidence’, then goes into ‘shia’ tradition and claims it is ‘common’ practice. In Iran?! Why and who is making fictional claims about Iran in Misplaced Pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PrivateCitizen999999999 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

. . .

. . . I am curious as to why items which have no proper citation are left as ‘information’? The situation of women under theocracy in Iran is bad enough, there is no need to make things up about it with intent of deliberately distorting and misrepresenting.  : PrivateCitizen 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" of the hoodectomy

I reworded the "these procedures can be highly controversial" line to refer only clitoridectomy and infibulation. I'm not convinced that the controversy regarding clitoridotomies (the version where only the hood is touched--either split or removed entirely) is anywhere near so great, and in any case the hood is pretty much the female equivalent of the foreskin.

This is not to downplay the pointless (and medically dangerous), sexist practice of infibulation, or the even more horrific act of clitoridectomy. Both of these acts are extremely controversial (for good reason, I think) and I don't have a problem mentioning that controversy. The clitoral hood, though, if anything isn't nearly as functional as the male foreskin. This isn't meant to start a flame war; I'm just stating simple facts:

The foreskin protects the glans from chaffage. After circumcision, keratin deposits build up in glans to desensitize it. Sexually speaking, this can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the individual.

With hoodectomies, on the other hand, the clitoris is usually still very well protected by the labia majora--it is protected from chaffage even without a hood. (There is always the possibility of an exceptionally large clitoris--one that protrudes significantly beyond the lips--but these clitorises 1. Are very rare. and 2. Usually protrude beyond their hood anyway.) Thus, I strongly doubt that the clitoris glans will undergo the same keratinization as the circumcised penis' glans.

In both sexes, the removal of skin can have other sexual affects (I could go into further detail, but I don't think it's necessary to start detailing various masturbatory techniques) but the point is, only in males does it also have the effect of reducing sensitivity. Therefore, the hoodectomy is actually less important (I mean "important" in the sense of "good" or "bad", depending on your opinion of genital modification) than the male circumcision.

I can't comment on the prevalence of hoodectomies vs. the more debilitating types of FGC, but the FGC article makes mention of it and I think we should avoid lumping all FGC into "badbadbad!" while remaining neutral on male circumcision. Y es, some people do routinely condemn all FGC as evil, but I do not believe this individuals are aware that much less drastic procedures (which are much more analogous to male circumcision) exist. If someone wants to challenge this belief, they should find a reputable source that is anti-hoodectomy (hoodectomy SPECIFICALLY) on principle alone (i.e. it doesn't object to the procedure merely on the grounds that their equipment is often primative and unsterile--this is an objection that can apply to any third-world medical procedure, including male circumcision.) --Lode Runner 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you are not familiar with male and female genitalia (either through medical knowledge or hands-on experience), please save yourself the trouble and embarassment--don't reply. I KNOW what I'm talking about.

EDIT (Realized I was veering off topic here): Apparently there are studies that claim male circumcision enhances sensitivity and studies that claim it hinders it. See foreskin and sexual effects of circumcision for the citations. Whatever the effects of male circumcision, the very fact that most studies show pronounced effects (in one direction or the other) shows just how important (again, for good or bad) male circumcision is.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that the hood is less functional than the foreskin, and removing it thus should have fewer effects. I don't have studies to back this up (and I doubt the existence of such studies), but it is a logical consequence of the clitoris simply being less exposed, whereas the circumcised penis' glans is forevermore rubbing up against undergarments. --Lode Runner 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be - to heavily paraphrase - "clitoridotomies are not controversial because they have relatively little impact."

There are several problems here:

1. You admit that you don't have studies to back up your reasoning, but a more significant problem is that the argument itself is unsourced. Misplaced Pages is not the place to make original arguments: it is a place to summarise ones made by others.
2. Any argument of the form "there is no controversy because one side is correct" is POV and erroneous. Controversy, as a rule, exists because both sides believe they are correct.
3. You state: "Yes, some people do routinely condemn all FGC as evil, but I do not believe..." Do you have a reliable, published source documenting your belief? If so, cite it. If not, it doesn't belong here.
4. Finally, your comments about male circumcision are inappropriate. The article is not 'comparison of male circumcision with female genital cutting'. Jakew 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making the mistake of applying Misplaced Pages policy regarding article content to the talk pages. See the talk page of WP:NOR for my full post. I am leading a campaign to clarify that talk pages do not fall under NOR or many of the other restrictions. What does this mean precisely? Well, basically we can discuss original research and take it into account into our decisions so long as we don't put that research in the article itself. For instance, the argument that "hoodectomies are widely condemned" is unsourced--only the argument that "female genital cutting in general is condemned" is sourced. But does this widespread condemnation apply to episiotomy or genital piercings or voluntary labiaplasty as well? Surely not. I submit to you that this is proof that controversial sort of "female genital cutting" is not the same as "all procedures which cut the female genitals." Is it synthesis? Of course. But this argument is being used to argue for removal of an UNCITED 'fact' from the encyclopedia, and this (as opposed to the addition of an uncited fact) is a valid usage of original research. If you have a reputable source (non-"fringe", as you like to say) that illustrates widespread condemnation for removal of the hood and only the hood, feel free to add it. My synthesis doesn't trump a valid, reputable source--but it does trump an uncited claim. The hoodectomy should not be miscatagorized due to the poor choice of words given by our other sources, which (again) if taken literally would apply to any medical procedure involving the vulva. My comparisons to the penis are (similarly) perfectly valid for the purposes of decision making. They are irrelevant to the article itself, but highly relevant to the talk page.

If you disagree with my interpretation of WP:NOR, feel free to debate it there. There has so far been no opposition to my proposed clarifications. Any other interpretation of WP:NOR would violate WP:IAR (i.e. if the rule is in the way of progress, screw the rule.) --Lode Runner 06:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm making no mistake: WP:TALK explicitly states that NOR applies to talk pages. If you gain consensus for changing the policy, and if the policy is subsequently changed, then your disagreement may become relevant. Currently, it isn't. Jakew 10:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK has been changed (by admins, not by me.) Unless you have sources to contradict my conclusions, NOR restriction clearly does not and should not apply in this situation. --Lode Runner 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been changed, and it still applies. From the current version of WP:TALK: "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages. Misplaced Pages's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies all apply to talk pages, although not as strictly as in an article page; there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." (emph added) Jakew 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits from May 20 to May 28

On May 28 I reverted to version 132129033 for a number of reasons, too many to list in the edit summary. My concerns are as follows:

1. A name and e-mail address is not sufficient for a reference.
2. Simply providing the text of Al-Tin 95:4 is not sufficient to back up the claim made, that Islam doesn't condone FGM.
3. The "popular culture" section already has a "cleanup-laundry" tag, it doesn't need a trivia tag as well (in fact the items mentioned are not trivial in the same sense that most other items in "popular culture" sections tend to be, which is why the tag was chosen).

As far as the pop culture list goes, I think some time in the near future I'll create a new list article and move everything there. I agree that an open ended list shouldn't be in a larger article, but the list items do have their own merit. Ciotog 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Job

It's good to see that the issue concerning the proper usage of an acronym, FGM vs. FGC, has finally been properly addressed and discussed within the article. I wanted to pass along a "thank you" to the editor(s) who incorporated this, somewhat contentious, subject matter into the article. Great job.

pixiequix 10:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

sexual consequences of FGC

Someone added a section on sexual consequences of female genital cutting, sourcing Hanny Lightfoot-Klein's book Prisoners of Ritual. They misquote it, citing only things that demonstrate it increases women's sexual pleasure, which is not the conclusion the author comes to. That's massively NPOV as well as quoting out of context, and should not be on this page. Why is it still there? I don't even see any discussion here about it.QuizzicalBee 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to end the practice of FGC

This statement found in the artical is either very confusing or contradictory.

For instance, prohibition of the procedure among tribes in Kenya significantly strengthened resistance to British colonial rule in the 1950s and increased support for the Mau Mau guerrilla movement. During that period, the practice became even more common, as it was seen as a form of resistance towards colonial rule.

Complications of ban

Yes, it has been banned in Egypt. Yet, the government needs to stiffen and enforce penalties and needs to investigate potential persons conducting the surgery. One needs to note that the practitioner in the Badour Shaker case was operating a clinic that was illegal in the first place. Additionally, as is apparent by a CNN report, even barbers conduct this practice. Thus, while Egypt has banned this practice, the ban does not necessarily end the wide-spread execution of this practice. Dogru144 09:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Condemned by Islam

In case some haven't noticed in the article, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa said "It is prohibited, prohibited, prohibited." Dogru144 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Map update?

It's unclear when Image:Fgm_map.gif was updated. There's a 2005 map at which was apparently constructed from public domain sources. The same data could be used to create a Misplaced Pages map. Though NPR is reporting that the incidence in Egypt has dropped to on the order of 70%. -- Beland 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to female genital mutilation

The article intro states:

• It is more frequently referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM)

So, why isn't this the lemma of this article?

Pjacobi 10:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Female genital cutting is more neutral, whereas female genital mutilation is used primarily by opponents of the practice. This is explained in the article. Garik 11 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't impress me much. You can overdo neutrality. We also don't care much for the feelings of the IHR in our Holocaust article. --Pjacobi 13:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read WP:NPOV. Note that the neutral point of view is "absolute and non-negotiable". Jakew 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read the definition of "mutilation." Accuracy IS neutrality. "Female genital mutilation" is the accurate term and based on fact. "Female genital cutting" is misleading because the procedure is far from a mere cutting, and that terminology is based on opinion. A truly NPOV would allow for accurate terminology and avoid the usage of inaccurate terms that only exist to satisfy an false equilibrium that is based on subjective reasoning. A NPOV should not be an excuse for rejecting accuracy. Bryanmode 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

@Jakew: NPOV doesn't imply that each and every view gets equal weight. If it is the most common name, it's the lemma, if not very important overriding arguments can be found. --Pjacobi 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure in some cultures, past and present, "nigger" is more common than "African American person." That doesn't make it more appropriate to use in an encylopedia. Mutilation implies a value judgement with which many cultures would disagree.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV has a cultural and time dependant component. We can't write from an absolute point in empty space. Britannica 1911 and today's Britannica sound different on many issues, despite the fact that both edition's editors did their best to achieve encyclopedic neutrality.

Also, due weight is no popular vote. We don't do a phone poll how to present the Axiom of Choice.

--Pjacobi 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "mutilation" can be, and often is, based on culturally-constructed value judgement. The fancy keloidal scars of some traditional african cultures, for example, might be called "mutilations" by some, but they are decorative and attractive to others, namely those who have them and create them. Voluntary limb amputations might be considered mutilations by most people, but I gather that there are those who have them and want them. So, who is to say? The extremity of something like voluntary amputation (!) leads me to consider that maybe my phrase "often is", in the first sentence, is too cautious. Maybe "mutilation" is always either culturally constructed, or subjective in origin. In any case, the focus here should be on the procedures which are carried out involuntarily, on young women not yet at the age of consent; this is where there is a human rights issue. I don't see the point of bickering about cultural/subjective aesthetics when they are chosen by individuals of age. I, personally, percieve some body-piercing extremes to be on the borderline of "mutilations", but that doesn't mean that I have the right to insist that they be described as such in an encyclopedia. That's my idiosyncratic reaction, not a matter of objective fact. -- Alan2012 01:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: From the standpoint of the majority of women who seek genital modification (which is the majority of women who have it), it is in no way "mutilation", but rather enhancement or beautification. Those are facts, which you can ascertain by studying the issue (just spend some time reading about it). Those are facts, but they would not justify calling this article "Female Genital Enhancement", since "enhancement" is a cultural/subjective value judgement. The title "Female Genital Cutting" is only so-so; it puts too much emphasis on technique, which is incidental. The title "Female Genital Modification" would be more appropriate, and it might include other practices such as piercings and ring insertions, tatooing, Western surgical alteration ("pussy lifts"), electrolysis and shaving, "feminine hygiene" sprays, etc. Whether such modifications are beautiful, repulsive, or in-between is a subjective and cultural matter. This is not about trying to "write from an absolute point in empty space"; it is about accomodating a very wide diversity of personal styles and aesthetic tastes. -- Alan2012 02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's quite clear that in some cultures the practice remains an acceptable one and calling it mutilation to them is incredibly misleading and in no way NPOV. Nil Einne 19:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed out half of the quote "It is more frequently referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision (FC)." The second part is key. Supporters of the practice tend to call it FC and therefore why shouldn't we call this article by that name instead of your proposes FGM? In the end, FGC is a more neutral term that balances both views. Also, did you actually bother to read the article? I don't get how some versions type IV (which doesn't always even involve cutting) can be said to be mutilation. Even type I is not really any more mutilation then other common practices like male circumscion which is usually not referred to by the name. (N.B. Personally even though I abhor the practice particularly type II and III, I always use FGC or FC, never FGM which is too value-laden to be any used) Nil Einne 19:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shweder's Fall 2000 Daedalus Article on "FGM"

It was surprising to see that this article made no mention of anthropologist Richard Shweder's much-discussed article in the Fall 2000 Daedalus. It is fascinating and highly informative, and could not be more relevant. Here are the first few paragraphs with the link. I highly recommend a careful reading of the whole thing. Perhaps someone closer to the editing process of this page could insert it as a reference in the appropriate places. -- Alan2012 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_200010/ai_n8920226

What about "female genital mutilation"? And why understanding culture matters in the first place

Daedalus, Fall 2000 by Shweder, Richard A

Female genital mutilation (FGM, also known as female circumcision) has been practiced traditionally for centuries in sub-Saharan Africa. Customs, rituals, myths, and taboos have perpetuated the practice even though it has maimed or killed untold numbers of women and girls.... FGM's disastrous health effects, combined with the social injustices it perpetuates, constitute a serious barrier to overall African development. --Susan Rich and Stephanie Joyce'

On the basis of the vast literature on the harmful effects of genital surgeries, one might have anticipated finding a wealth of studies that document considerable increases in mortality and morbidity. This review could find no incontrovertible evidence on mortality, and the rate of medical complications suggests that they are the exception rather than the rule. --Carla M. Obermeyer2

Early societies in Africa established strong controls over the sexual behavior of their women and devised the brutal means of circumcision to curb female sexual desire and response. --Olayinka Koso-Thomas3

... studies that systematically investigate the sexual feelings of women and men in societies where genital surgeries are found are rare, and the scant information that is available calls into question the assertion that female genital surgeries are fundamentally antithetical to women's sexuality and incompatible with sexual enjoyment. --Carla M. Obermeyer4

Those who practice some of the most controversial of such customs--clitoridectomy, polygamy, the marriage of children or marriages that are otherwise coerced--sometimes explicitly defend them as necessary for controlling women and openly acknowledge that the customs persist at men's insistence. --Susan M. Okin5

It is difficult for me--considering the number of ceremonies I have observed, including my own-- to accept that what appear to be expressions of joy and ecstatic celebrations of womanhood in actuality disguise hidden experiences of coercion and subjugation. Indeed, I offer that the bulk of Kono women who uphold these rituals do so because they want to--they relish the supernatural powers of their ritual leaders over against men in society, and they brace the legitimacy of female authority and, particularly, the authority of their mothers and grandmothers. --Fuambai Ahmadu6

BY RITES A WOMAN: LISTENING TO THE MULTICULTURAL VOICES OF FEMINISM

ON NOVEMBER 18, 1999, Fuambai Ahmadu, a young African scholar who grew up in the United States, delivered a paper at the American Anthropological Association meeting in Chicago that should be deeply troubling to all liberal freethinking people who value democratic pluralism and the toleration of "differences" and who care about the accuracy of cultural representations in our public-policy debates.

Ahmadu began her paper with these words:

I also share with feminist scholars and activists campaigning against the practice a concern for women's physical, psychological and sexual well-being, as well as for the implications of these traditional rituals for women's status and power in society. Coming from an ethnic group in which female (and male) initiation and "circumcision" are institutionalized and a central feature of culture and society and having myself undergone this traditional process of becoming a "woman," I find it increasingly challenging to reconcile my own experiences with prevailing global discourses on female "circumcision."7

Coming-of-age ceremonies and gender-identity ceremonies involving genital alterations are embraced by, and deeply embedded in the lives of, many African women, not only in Africa but in Europe and the United States as well. Estimates of the number of contemporary African women who participate in these practices vary widely and wildly between eighty million and two hundred million. In general, these women keep their secrets secret. They have not been inclined to expose the most intimate parts of their bodies to public examination and they have not been in the habit of making their case on the op-ed pages of American newspapers, in the halls of Congress, or at academic meetings. So it was an extraordinary event to witness Fuambai Ahmadu, an initiate and an anthropologist, stand up and state that the oft-repeated claims "regarding adverse effects on women's sexuality do not tally with the experiences of most Kono women," including her own.8 Ahmadu was twenty-two years old and sexually experienced when she returned to Sierra Leone to be circumcised, so at least in her own case she knows what she is talking about. Most Kono women uphold the practice of female (and male) circumcision and positively evaluate its consequences for their psychological, social, spiritual, and physical well-being. Ahmadu went on to suggest that Kono girls and women feel empowered by the initiation ceremony (see quotation, above) and she described some of the reasons why.

Ahmadu's ethnographic observations and personal testimony may seem astonishing to readers of Daedalus. In the social and intellectual circles in which most Americans travel it has been so "politically correct" to deplore female circumcision that the alarming claims and representations of anti-"FGM" advocacy groups (images of African parents routinely and for hundreds of years disfiguring, maiming, and murdering their female children and depriving them of their capacity for a sexual response) have not been carefully scrutinized with regard to reliable evidence. Nor have they been cross-examined by freethinking minds through a process of systematic rebuttal. Quite the contrary; the facts on the ground and the correct moral attitude for "good guys" have been taken to be so self-evident that merely posing the rhetorical question "what about FGM?" is presumed to function as an obvious counterargument to cultural pluralism and to define a clear limit to any feelings of tolerance for alternative ways of life. This is unfortunate, because in this case there is good reason to believe that the case is far less onesided than supposed, that the "bad guys" are not really all that bad, that the values of pluralism should be upheld, and that the "good guys" may have rushed to judgment and gotten an awful lot rather wrong.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - Next

Janice Boddy on anti-FGC as extension of colonialism & cultural imperialism

Along the same lines as the above (Shweder), this is a new book by Janice Boddy:

SNIPPETS:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8414.html
http://press.princeton.edu/TOCs/c8414.html
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8414.html

Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan

Janice Boddy, Princeton U Press, 2007

Civilizing Women is a riveting exploration of the disparate worlds of British colonial officers and the Muslim Sudanese they sought to remake into modern imperial subjects. Focusing on efforts to stop female circumcision in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan between 1920 and 1946, Janice Boddy mines colonial documents and popular culture for ethnographic details to interleave with observations from northern Sudan, where women's participation in zƒr spirit possession rituals provided an oblique counterpoint to colonial views.

The tendency for female genital cutting to overdetermine perceptions of northern Sudan is not unusual. Indeed, no other cultural practice that refigures human bodies is more vilified in the Western press than what it calls "female genital mutilation" or "FGM."

Over the past two decades or more, a highly visible international crusade to end female genital cutting (FGC) has taken place, aimed at African countries such as Sudan. While those who practice FGC belong to a variety of religions, the majority are Muslims, and the custom is said to support premarital chastity, strongly associated with Islam. The issue has arisen in debates about the "clash of civilizations," between Islamic societies -- often labeled "medieval" and "barbaric" -- and the "civilized" West. As Richard Shweder notes, "the global campaign against what has been gratuitously and invidiously labeled "female genital mutilation" remains a flawed game whose rules have been fixed by the rich nations of the world."3 This book describes an opening test match in that game, set in Sudan during the first half of the twentieth century under British colonial rule. I offer it as an extended critique of the continuing campaign, the discourse that informs it, and the imperialist logic that sustains it even now.

Much literature on the subject is moralizing and polemical, and regularly alienates those in positions to stimulate change... n cases too numerous to list, self-righteous critics present and past have leaped to condemn what they've only presumed to understand, citing unverified statistics culled from other disparaging publications, relying on self-reference and reiteration to create the truth of their cause.12 Their typical verdict: that female genital cutting regularly kills, has no valid meaning, and is inflicted on ignorant and powerless women by sadistic men.13

My research warns that this view is mistaken, born of little contextual data and a specifically Euro-American set of ideas about person, agency, and gender. I am not arguing that we can reposition an elusive Archimedean point to achieve greater "objectivity"; one can never be truly outside of a culture, there is no such nonplace to be, no "view from nowhere."14 To say that one's culture guides and perhaps mystifies understanding is incontestable and trite; taken to its logical conclusion, it applies to analysts as well as their subjects, granting Western critics no unmediated purchase on the practices they decry. Admitting one's situatedness clarifies one's responsibility to take seriously what people have to say for themselves, to credit the contexts of their lives. Insight comes neither by Olympian fiat nor through spurious, if therapeutic, empathy.

This book is not only about colonial efforts to end infibulation in Sudan, or the shape of a colonial venture in one small part of the world. It is also a protracted allegory for imperialism in the early twenty-first century. The dark impress of the colonial past is palpable in today's Darfur and the long-standing conflict between northern and southern Sudan.21 Indeed, so much of the current era, the strained relations between Christianity and Islam, claims of "civilization" and "barbarism," individualism and communal values, is a complicated echo of former times.22

FGC & HIV/AIDS?

I just omitted the last portion of THIS passage, from the "Medical Consequences" section:

"The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections and the spread of disease, such as HIV, especially when the same instruments are used to perform procedures on multiple women."

Reference number 10 is:

EAST AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, Volume 69 Number 9: Pages 479-482,
September 1992.
THE RISK OF MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS AFTER FEMALE CIRCUMCISION 
M. A. DIRIE and G. LINDMARK 

.......... the full text is available online, and it says nothing about HIV or AIDS.

Is there some other reference which establishes a relation?

-- Alan2012 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hernlund & Shell-Duncan: Female Genital Cutting in Global Context

Further along the lines of Shweder and Boddy:

This book is too new to be in most libraries or for there to be more detailed online reviews available. Nevertheless, from the brief descriptions and chapter titles one can get the gist.

Note the mention of "frequent marginalization of African women's voices in debates over FGC". This is emphasized by Shweder and others. There's a lot of racism, classism and (even!) sexism in this whole mess, along with cultural imperialism.

-- Alan2012 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/welcome.jsp?source=rss&isbn=0813540267

Transcultural Bodies: Female Genital Cutting in Global Context

Hernlund, Ylva Shell-Duncan, Bettina

ISBN: 0813540267

Rutgers

œ22.50*

Publication date: 01 July 2007

ISBN 0813540267 DEWEY 392.1

Full description

Female "circumcision" or, more precisely, female genital cutting (FGC), remains an important cultural practice in many African countries, often serving as a coming-of-age ritual. It is also a practice that has generated international dispute and continues to be at the center of debates over women's rights, the limits of cultural pluralism, the balance of power between local cultures, international human rights, and feminist activism. In our increasingly globalized world, these practices have also begun immigrating to other nations, where transnational complexities vex debates about how to resolve the issue. Bringing together thirteen essays, "Transcultural Bodies" provides an ethnographically rich exploration of FGC among African diasporas in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia. The contributors analyze changes in ideologies of gender and sexuality in immigrant communities, the frequent marginalization of African women's voices in debates over FGC, and controversies over legislation restricting the practice in immigrant populations.

Reviews

"This volume of essays by some of the most knowledgeable experts in the world takes us a huge step beyond the global activist and first-world media (mis-)representations of FGM into moral complexities, alternative beliefs about gender and beauty, and local political realities in areas of Africa where genital surgeries are commonplace for both men and women and are highly valued by both sexes." - Richard A. Shweder, author of Why Do Men Barbecue?: Recipes for Cultural Psychology"

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0618/2006025455.html

Table of contents for Transcultural bodies : female genital cutting in global context / edited by Ylva Hernlund and Bettina Shell-Duncan.

Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.

Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.

Contents

List of Tables

Preface

Chapter 1 Transcultural Positions: Negotiating Rights and Culture --Ylva Hernlund and Bettina Shell-Duncan

Chapter 2 Gender Crusades: The Female Circumcision Controversy in Cultural Perspective --Janice Boddy

Chapter 3 A Refuge from Tradition and The Refuge of Tradition: On Anti-Circumcision Paradigms --L. Amede Obiora

Chapter 4 Female Circumcision in Africa and Beyond: The Anthropology of a Difficult Issue --Aud Talle

Chapter 5 Persistence of Tradition or Reassessment of Cultural Practices in Exile? Discourses on female circumcision among and about Swedish Somalis --Sara Johnsdotter

Chapter 6 Managing Cultural Diversity in Australia: Legislating Female Circumcision, Legislating Communities --Juliet Rogers

Chapter 7 Representing Africa in the Kasinga Asylum Case --Charles Piot

Chapter 8 Seeking Asylum, Debating Values and Setting Precedents in the 1990s: The Cases of Kassindja and Abankwah in the United States --Corinne A. Kratz

Chapter 9 Making Mandinga or Making Muslims? Debating Female Circumcision, Ethnicity, and Islam in Guinea-Bissau and Portugal --Michelle C. Johnson

Chapter 10 Infibulation and the Orgasm Puzzle: Sexual Experiences of Infibulated Eritrean Women in Rural Eritrea and Melbourne Australia --Mansura Dopico

Chapter 11 Experiencing Sex in Exile: Can genitals change their gender? On conceptions and experiences related to Female Genital Cutting (FGC) among Somalis in Norway R. --Elise B. Johansen

Chapter 12 "Ain't I a Woman Too?": Challenging Myths of Sexual Dysfunction in Circumcised Women --Fuambai Ahmadu

Chapter 13 The Failure of Pluralism? --Henrietta L. Moore

Bibliography

Index

"Female Genital Modification" (vs FGC): How about it?

On second and third thought, I think this idea is a good one: I wrote (above):

The title "Female Genital Cutting" is only so-so; it puts too much emphasis on technique, which is 
incidental. The title "Female Genital Modification" would be more appropriate, and it might include
other practices such as piercings and ring insertions, tatooing, Western surgical alteration ("pussy
lifts"), electrolysis and shaving, "feminine hygiene" sprays, etc. Whether such modifications are
beautiful, repulsive, or in-between is a subjective and cultural matter.

Indeed. Why not broaden the scope, under the title "Female Genital Modification", and present it all in the context of what is, undeniably, an intense interest (if not obsession), worldwide, with the appearance (and perhaps organoleptic qualities) of female genitals, and with changing same? Clearly this interest -- and willingness to undertake radical and risky modifying procedures -- is not limited to Africa, Asia, or other poor areas of the world. Traditional (African, S Asian, etc.) "FGC" is but one group among a larger variety of procedures falling under the general heading of Female Genital Modification. That is, modification for personal, subjective, aesthetic and cultural reasons (i.e. non-medical).

This is obviously a notable worldwide phenomenon, attracting the attention of at least hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people. It handily clears the hurdle of "notability".

Comments, please.

-- Alan2012 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Further thought, more important than the above:

Even "Female Genital Modification" is not right, since it refers (like "cutting") only to technique, and does not really express what is going on in human terms. No one goes for "modification" or "cutting"; they go for aesthetic enhancement. That's the purpose of said modifications or cutting. So, a title along the lines of "Female Genital Aesthetics" would be the more proper, more general heading, with subheadings including the various techniques employed, human rights issues (where genital modification is forced or violent), etc.

For perspective, consider: calling an aesthetic effort merely "cutting" or "modification" is like dealing with high-fashion clothing under the heading "Stitched Body-Coverings", or like discussing skyscrapers under the heading "Altitudinous Building Material Assemblages". Obviously, those titles have technical correctness, but they utterly fail to express, in human/cultural terms, what is going on, what is important. They merely advert to a few relatively trivial technical facts. The same is true of "Female Genital Cutting" -- technically correct (if limited in scope; hence my original suggestion of changing to "Modification"), but focussing on a relatively trivial technical fact. The KEY thing, the central matter, is not that genitals are being cut or modified (by whatever means), but that hundreds of millions (or billions) of humans find it desirable or even necessary to undertake rather extreme procedures in the interest of (percieved) aesthetic improvement. THAT is the primary phenomenon here. Everything else is important, too, in its own subordinate sphere. (When I say "relatively trivial" I mean exactly that; relatively, not absolutely. The cutting and whatnot is important, too, but something else is more important. Copische?)

Hence I suggest that the title be changed to something like "Female Genital Aesthetics & Enhancement Procedures", or "Female Genital Aesthetics, Modification & Adornment" -- a tad wordy, but the best I can do at the moment.

Comments, suggestions and improvements, please.

PS: You'll note, by the way, that referring to "aesthetics" does NOT take a point of view as to whether the aesthetic objectives are met; i.e. this does not say that the procedures in question DO result in improvement. It merely says that aesthetic improvement is the (human) purpose of the procedures in question -- whether or not that purpose is achieved (which is, again, very much a subjective and cultural matter).

-- Alan2012 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be not be the best idea to change the title of this article to the titles you're proposing, because of the most prevalent way of referencing this procedure. While it would be wrong to label the article "Female Genital Mutilation" - since this would be promotion of a particular POV - the current title of "Female Genital Cutting" is a neutral term that is widely used around the world, especially in scholarly work. Furthermore, FGC usually carries much more meaning for the peoples that practice it than simple "aesthetics" and/or "enhancement of female genitalia." There is often also deep cultural and spiritual significance in this procedure. Thus, I think the name of this article should remain as is. ~ Homologeo 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "pussy lift" surgery: that phrase is (obviously) slang, and not as common as I had thought. It refers to a wide variety of procedures most commonly referred to as "labioplasty" or "vaginal rejuvenation", listed here: http://www.onlinesurgery.com/plasticsurgery/vaginal-rejuvenation-default.asp

Namely:

-Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation

-Labiaplasty

-Designer Laser Vaginoplasty

-Vaginal Relaxation

-Hymenoplasty

-Vaginoplasty

-G-Spot Amplification

See also the photos here:

http://www.cosmeticsurg.net/procedures/Labioplasty.php --- Labioplasty/Labiaplasty Info and Photos

Those photos are interesting insofar as one can see a parallel with traditional African genital modifications: the purpose is to smooth, to eliminate protuberance, which is deemed undesirable. Perhaps "our" (modern, Western) tastes and preferences are not so very far removed from "theirs".

I note that the purpose of these procedures is principally, but not exclusively, aesthetic. Another purpose is to enhance sexual pleasure for male and/or female. That would suggest, in keeping with my comments above, an article title along the lines of "Female Genital Aesthetics & Hedonic Functionality", or some such. (Again, wordy, but best I can think of off the top.) I could argue that "aesthetics" covers it, since that can be defined as having to do with sense perception in general, (which would include genital sensations during coitus), though I know that it most often refers to visual beauty.

As ever: comments are welcome. I am still working through all this stuff myself. It is a process.

PS: Inexplicably, I've been unable to find any reference to vaginoplasties and labiaplasties as "mutilations" in the literature disseminated by the plastic surgeons who perform the operations.

-- Alan2012 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why reference girl handing out sweets?

In the "Attempts to end the practice of FGC" section there is this paragraph:

"On June 28, 2007 Egypt banned female genital cutting after the death of 12-year old Badour Shaker during a genital circumcision. The Guardian of Britain reported that her death "sparked widespread condemnation" of the practice. Egyptian newspapers reported that earlier in the day of her surgery, the girl had given out sweets, in celebration of her excellent grades in school. (See earlier in this article for details of the death, and see the details in the next section regarding the ban on female genital cutting.)"

Why include the sentence about the girl handing out sweets? What relevance does it have to FGC? If it is to show that she was healthy earlier in the same day I feel that needs to be clarified. Mnoram 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

====

One sicko, as far as I can see: Alan2012 Can you not see that little girls being held down and mutilated is heinous ? They are too young to agree to such wickedness. They are not being "modified". They are being subjected to mutilation of a nightmarish proportion. They can't recover because their nerve pathways have been cut away. Congratulations, Alan Mengele.

=========

Vandalism

Some idiot has vandalized a section of this page. some one should take care of it and replace it with something appropriate

Can you be more specific about the vandalism?QuizzicalBee 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You noticed it. Why don't you do it?

Definition of Type I FGC factually incorrect.

In the article, type I FGC is defined as clitoridectomy. This is incorrect. Clitoridectomy is defined as the removal (excision) of part or all of the clitoris] ]. Type I FGC is defined by WHO as: "Type I (FGM 1) - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris."] How should we fix this? Also, the sentence under Type I which begins, "This term was devised in The Sudan by...." is not supported by the source. It isn't even clear what term this is referring to, but there is nothing in the source suggesting that any term was "devised in the Sudan." Blackworm 10:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags under "Different Types" section

I don't see a reference anywhere. Where is the reference for the claim that there are inherent different enumerated "types" of Female Genital Cutting? Who originated this enumeration? In any case, this grouping and enumeration must be attributed, not presented to us as fact without citation. See WP:V. I have also tagged "Type I - Clitoridectomy" with being a factual error -- for reasons tI cite in a different section, above. Blackworm 05:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to just put on the offending sentence. Blackworm 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit made to add a reference was incomplete. The statement is "four types have been categorized." The source says "the second section defines four types of mutilation." Thus, at best, the statement should say "The World Health Organization defines four types of female genital mutilation" -- thus properly attributing the source of the definition and conforming to WP:V. Now, there is also the issue as to whether a detailed rehash of the type system the WHO invented is to be included in the article, with subsequent discussion framed in those terms. Blackworm 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a joint statement by the WHO, Unicef and the United Nations Population Fund - I don't know where else you would find a more globally accepted citation. I'll leave it up to others whether we can accept this citation, or reject it as you would like. Ciotog 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A joint statement by three branches of the UN? Then why don't we say so? Should the UN be the originaor of facts without attribution? There is no inherent classification of "different types" of FGM. That we frame the entire article discussion according to the UN's classification, without attributing this classification to the UN, violates WP:NPOV. Blackworm 20:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the change you are discussing is the requirement to reference the definition -- the lead sentence. This is a definition. If the UN get to define this practice, the definition should be attributed to them. I propose adding, "according to the UN" or "as used by the UN" before your reference. Then you would also have to source that all forms described fall under the scope of the terms "female genital mutilation" and "female circumcision," too. Not an easy task. Blackworm 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that the current rendering of the UN term's definition is incomplete and thus factually incorrect, as it does not refer to "or other injury to the female genital organs" from the source's definition. Blackworm 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the UN, this is a universally accepted "definition" and classification. Where else should the definition come from? I mean, which citation would you accept, if not this one? Ciotog 22:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I might point out that if Websters is used as a citation source for a definition, the article generally doesn't say "according to Websters". The citation itself gives the source, so there's no need to explicitly mention it. I guess you're arguing that the UN shouldn't be allowed to define this term? (Actually they generally don't say "cutting", they say "mutiliation", but of course you can't use language like that around here or someone might be offended) Ciotog 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is a "universally accepted 'definition.'" Organizations define terms in order to better promote their interests. The UN/WHO even admits this; it has changed its definition to from female genital "mutilation" to "cutting." Its cited reason:

to avoid fuelling unnecessary sensitivity about the issue. Thus, for example, participants coined a new phrase for FGM: "female genital cutting." The term "female circumcision" was rejected as a misleading euphemism, but "female genital mutilation" was thought to imply excessive judgement by outsiders as well as insensitivity toward individuals who have undergone excision.

— DISPATCHES -- NEWS FROM UNFPA, THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND, NUMBER 6, MARCH 1996]

This source is an arm of the United Nations. The UN is an organization with internal competing interests. It coined this phrase -- by its own source. To not attribute the phrase solely to this organization is a factual error and a violation of WP:NPOV. The UN is not a "universally accepted" source. Blackworm 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

REACH isn't an "arm" of the UN, it is a single program sponsored by the UN. The WHO have always predominantly referred to the procedure as "mutilation". If they had changed their terminology, why did they use this at the beginning of the cited news release?

I amend my statement. The UN has changed its terminology. The WHO, as an agency of the UN, has yet to adopt this terminology. The article is called "female genital cutting" -- we must show where this phrase originated, as well as the phrases "female genital mutilation," and "female circumcision," and also show why Misplaced Pages believes the phrases are equivalent (which is also unsourced at the moment). Also, since the title, "female genital cutting" is used to describe certain actions which are not the cutting of female genitals, we must justify the lumping together of these different practices under this banner in Misplaced Pages. Blackworm 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. WHO originated the term with "cutting," for dissemination among the rest of the UN, and not to "upset" people pressured into stopping the practice, but they continue to use the term "mutilation" internally. Seems two-faced. In any case they are both UN/WHO defined terms, unlike "female circumcision" meaning "circumcision] of females" which was commonly used until certain organizations proposed new terms for their campaign to end the practice -- they opposed circumcision of females but advocated the circumcision of males, and wanted to play down as many similarities as possible in the minds of the public. It has apparently succeeded to the extent that editors here repeat the UN/WHO terms and present, without a source, the old terminology as a euphemism used only by rabid circumcision critics. This is a grave violation of WP:NPOV. Blackworm 11:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The terminology debate has already occurred numerous times. I suggest you read through the talk pages to see how a compromise was reached, after arbitration. Ciotog 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I read through the talk pages and found no such compromise. If there was a binding decision from the Arbitration Committee on this specific issue, please refer me to it. Blackworm 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I'm puzzled about your motivations for filling up this article with fact tags. The article needs a lot of cleaning up, but I don't think this is helpful. I suppose the goal is to turn it into an equivalent of the circumcision article? Ciotog 13:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the equivalent of the circumcision article." Putting fact tags on the article is exactly how articles are made to conform to WP:V. Please read that page; in particular the highlighted quote from Jimbo Wales. Blackworm 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken - fixing problems is how articles are made to conform to WP:V, not sticking a bunch of fact tags on everything. You could have fixed a number of issues yourself, you even proposed a way to do it (by adding "by the WHO"), but instead you chose to revert my entirely reasonable citations. Not very constructive.

Similarly the circumcision article has a group that actively suppresses reputable sources from being included, because they "don't agree" with them. Ciotog 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You misread WP:V. Adding fact tags is more polite than removing unsourced sections, which is what WP:V calls for us to do "aggressively." I pointed to a problem, and proposed a possible solution. This is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Contrary to your opinion, it is in fact constructive. Your citation was not reasonable, because it did not address the problem; your claims of a "universally accepted definition" notwithstanding. Blackworm 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(reset indentation) WP:V says to use reliable sources. The World Health Organization is a reliable source. They are cited in numerous governmental and scholarly sources and their 4 types are used to classify FGC in the majority I've seen, and they're used to aid the rest of the discussion (so that the different types may be referenced later). Please be bold and help fix what you think is wrong with the article, rather than placing fact tags which lower the article's worth (articles have failed good article nominations because of them). Ciotog 03:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They may be a reliable source, but they are not the only source. To treat them as such is a violation of WP:NPOV. If WHO wishes to define terms that appear in Misplaced Pages, those terms should be clearly and constantly attributed to WHO. Moreover, other, similar terms (such as "female circumcision") are rejected by WHO, and therefore should not be defined under the banner of the WHO-originated (but not approved), UN-approved phrase. Please stop claiming that I am lowering this article's worth; on the contrary, it is already improved. Bad information is worse than no information. See WP:V. Also, this article is so wildly flawed that it has no chance whatsoever to be nominated as a good article. It may need to be reorganized or renamed so that we do not frame the entire discussion of the subject strictly by WHO's terms, assumptions, and attitudes. Blackworm 11:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"there is some debate as to whether all common forms of FGC fit into these four categories, as well as issues with the reliability of reported data" is part of the same sentence that says there are four types, this should address your concerns. I think the average wikipedia reader is able to figure out that a classification scheme is just a scheme for ease of discussion, not an innate part of the concept.

Aside from the WHO's classification, who else has classified FGM? Please provide some of your sources so their relative worth can be gauged, and if they're notable enough included in the article. Ciotog 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim that anyone else did. It doesn't matter. Blackworm 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jakew's deletion of "which is partially or totally removed during male circumcision."

My edit, being repeatedly reverted by Jakew, is the addition of "which is partially..." in the sentence below:

The clitoral hood is the female prepuce, homologous to the foreskin (prepuce) of the male, which is partially or totally removed during male circumcision.

Jakew has objected on grounds on WP:NOR. This is invalid, the source is referenced and the information is widely available.

Jakew has also objected on ground that it violates WP:SOAP. Please indicate how you believe my change violates this policy. My change is not "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment," it is not an "opinion piece," nor is it "self-promotion" nor "advertisement" (quoted from WP:SOAP).

The change is useful for context and adherence to WP:NPOV, especially given the prior introduction of the term, "female circumcision" and the fact that this term redirects here. We would not want to give the impression that all forms of female circumcision are analogous to male circumcision, for example; thus it is appropriate to point out the appropriate categorization of the analogous procedure called circumcision in males. Blackworm 13:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.

— WP:NOR, emphasis in original

Since the cited source doesn't even mention female genital cutting (or any equivalent term), it is clearly not directly related to the topic of the article, and thus fails NOR.

But of course, male circumcision is not directly related to the subject of the article. The purpose of the article is to explain and discuss female genital cutting. Last time I checked, males were not females, and any procedures performed on the male anatomy could not constitute female genital cutting. Such an addition, therefore, is off-topic, and can only serve to promote the view that male circumcision and FGC have similarities -- soapboxing, in other words. Jakew 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indicating how one procedure performed on males is analogous to a procedure performed on females which is part of the topic of the article in question is certainly relevant. A better reference would be required though. Ciotog 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Male circumcision is directly related to female circumcision, which is the subject of this article. This information promotes no view, regardless of what view you believe it "serves." Ciotog, can you explain why you believe a better reference would be required? The claim seems supported by the source. Blackworm 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The only established relationship is one of language: that one of the terms used to refer to one procedure shares one word with another term used to refer to another procedure. You may feel that it is otherwise related, but that is not an established fact. While you're certainly entitled to hold that POV, it is a poor basis from which to argue. Jakew 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you seem to agree that it is related. It doesn't, in fact, refer to "another procedure," it refers to two specific forms of the same procedure, namely, "circumcision." It's not just language; it is not a mere coincidence that these two concepts share the same word. They both refer to removal of the prepuce -- which takes different forms when a circumcision is performed on a male and female. This is more than enough justification for the inclusion, especially since you have not shown that it violates any policy in any way. Blackworm 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV. I have shown violation of policy above. Jakew 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Does this mean we are at an impasse? Blackworm 16:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It means that you have not succeeded in demonstrating that you are not presenting original research. Per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Jakew 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that I believe I have successfully demonstrated adherence to WP:V, through the use of the source cited. I do not see any merit to your objection. Blackworm 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that you believe you have done so. However, your own belief in the relevance of your addition to the article is insufficient; you bear the burden of evidence to convince others (including myself) that you have done so. "This source is relevant because it is about a subject that is, in my opinion, directly relevant to the article" is no more compelling than "In my opinion, this source is relevant". Misplaced Pages specifically requires that the source is directly related: show me that it is, not merely in your opinion, but in the source itself. Jakew 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You misinterpret policy. I have no burden to convince you, Jakew, that I adhere to WP:V. My burden is to adhere to WP:V and other policy. The burden has been met by my referencing a reliable source that supports my addition, and successfully defending against other claims of Misplaced Pages policy violations. Further, I never said what you quote. If you honestly require evidence that male circumcision is related to female circumcision, I could point you to a dictionary, such as this one ], this one ], this one ], this one ], this one ], or this one ]. For some of those definitions, the meaning of the word "prepuce" may be of use to the uninitiated; it can found here ] and here ]. Blackworm 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." -- WP:V Jakew 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Blackworm 18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source establishing that the WHO document is directly relevant to female genital cutting? Jakew 18:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

None is necessary. It suffices to "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article"(WP:NOR). It is the information that must be related, not the source of that information. Blackworm 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the point: how do you intend to prove that it is directly related? Jakew 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been done already. See above. "If you honestly require evidence that male circumcision is related to female circumcision..." Blackworm 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

...in which you gave examples of language terms that may apply to one or the other. This fails to establish that anything directly related to one is directly related to the other. Similarly, the word 'smack' can mean 'to smack a child' or 'heroin', but citing a dictionary definition that establishes this does not mean that a document about smacking children is directly related to heroin. Please cite a reliable source demonstrating relevance of the WHO document to the topic of this article. Jakew 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I didn't claim that the source ("document") was on the topic of female circumcision, as you seem to require, contrary to policy. I claimed that the information I added is related to female circumcision; and cited reliable source to support that claim, satisfying WP:V. I don't believe your analogy applies, the two definitions of "smack" being completely unrelated, with no similarity in definition nor etymology. That would be why the two "smack" definitions have two completely separate dictionary entries.] Now, Jakew, since we are both repeating ourselves, perhaps it's time for someone else's opinion, wouldn't you agree? Blackworm 19:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel that this, of all possible analogies, is 'certainly relevant', Ciotog? Jakew 13:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems biologically obvious. Males and females develop from the same embryonic beginning stage - in fact it's generally only near the end of the embryonic stage that it's apparent whether a male or female fetus will develop. Mentioning the links between male and female experience helps develop an overall sense of human experience, which is important for a fully developed encyclopedia article about a human subject. Ciotog 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ciotog, can you explain why you believe a better reference would be required? The claim seems supported by the source. Blackworm 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)"

The cited document doesn't explain how male circumcision is related to female circumcision, which means the claim that they're related is original research. A citation that directly states that they're related would be required (this one ] that you provided is close, but it doesn't explicitly say that circumcising the prepuce of females and males is analogous). Ciotog 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The cited document is there to support the text I'm including, not the claim that male circumcision is related to female circumcision. The latter claim seems required to establish the relevance of the material, and is obvious to me, but Jakew denied that it was true, therefore I pointed Jakew to several dictionaries, cited in my response to him above. There is no claim anywhere in the article that "circumcising the prepuce of females and males is analogous," despite the case for it. The claim that I added is that male circumcision removes the foreskin; a claim I certainly hope is not under debate. The claim is sourced, and its relevance is clear. Blackworm 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it would be better to tie everything together with a single citation that covers both points, rather than the one there currently that only mentions male circumcision. Jakew doesn't seem to be contesting that the female clitoral hood and male foreskin are analogous, but mentioning male circumcision is a stretch beyond this that needs a proper citation to bring the ideas together. There are plenty of cases where I don't feel a citation is even necessary (in this and other articles), but they need to be included and shown to be relevant if another editor asks for one. Personally I would prefer that it be added by that editor, especially when it's obvious that they'd know where to find one, but as Jakew indicated it's up to the editor adding the content to back it up with proper citations. Ciotog 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Jakew's demand to be reasonable nor mandated by policy. Sourcing applies to claims in the article -- the claim I added is sourced. Relevance is obvious, but then it doesn't hurt to read a dictionary if the obvious isn't obvious, I suppose. I noticed you have changed the cite; I haven't verified it, but thank you for helping on this. If the new source is challenged, I will restore the old source and attempt to obtain some kind of third party opinion. Blackworm 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As expected, an attempt was again made to remove this information. I have restored this information along with a new cited reference which supports all aspects of the sentence. Hopefully this will end this discussion. Blackworm 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic change

Unfortunately, the text has now been changed, reintroducing several problems. The change is from:

• The clitoral hood is the female prepuce (named after the prepuce of the male which is removed during circumcision ).

To:

• The clitoral hood is the female prepuce, homologous to the foreskin (prepuce) of the male, which is partially or totally removed during male circumcision.

The edit summary was "Better ref, supporting entire sentence".

Problems include:

1. The text has been changed from an accurate representation of a source to an inaccurate representation of another source. This second source does not state that the clitoral prepuce is homologous at all, yet the placement of the source implies that it directly supports this claim.
2. The text, being background material and not directly related to the subject of the article, should be short and in parentheses. For no apparent reason these corrections have been undone, with lengthier text reintroduced.
3. The link to a redirect has been restored, instead of correctly linking to a proper article.
4. It is unclear why this is a 'better' reference. It is simply an opinion piece by opponents of circumcision. Jakew 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable. "Unfortunately the text has been changed?" YOU inexplicably changed it to the version you are claiming is the "from" version -- a change which completely (and not surprisingly) changed the meaning of the sentence and introduced POV by questioning the validity of using "prepuce" to describe the clitoral hood. I reverted your horrible change, and found a source that supported the entire sentence, rather than only the addition I made recently. Your comment above is deceptive and misleading. There are NO problems with this current wording. I am sorry you seem to see any information existing anywhere in the universe which may, potentially, upon reflection, cast circumcision in a negative light as "opinion." Perhaps you should refrain your circumcision advocacy to non-encyclopedic arenas -- your ubiquitous presence in circumcision advocacy (as a simple Google search on "Jake Waskett" reveals) may be causing you to see bias where there isn't any. Blackworm 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find the changes inexplicable. Perhaps if you re-read the above, and the relevant edit summary, you will find you understand.

My change (horrible or otherwise) did not question the validity of using "prepuce". It did, however, accurately reflect the source, which did not discuss homologues, but did discuss the origin of the term (source: "the clitoris prepuce, so called after the penis prepuce", article: "named after the prepuce of the male"). Unfortunately, your edit changed the source but still managed to misrepresent it, as I noted above. It does not discuss homologues, although your edit claims that it does. Perhaps we might be able to rephrase "The clitoral prepuce develops similarly to that in the male". I don't know. In the meantime, I look forward to your addressing the issues I've raised. Jakew 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Infibulation description contradicted by its "source"

The word "infibulation" is derived from the Latin word "fibula," meaning a pin or clasp. The term has been given to a mulative procedure in which the vagina is partially closed by approximating the labia majora in the midline. Clitoridectomy may or may not be included, but the essential part of the operation consists of partial closure of the vulva and the vaginal orifice.

— New York State Journal of Medicine, Volume 77, Number 6: Pages 729-31, April 1977.

Infibulation involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora, leaving a raw open wound. Nothing remains of the normal anatomy of the genitalia,

— Misplaced Pages, citing the above

All empasis mine. Can we do better than this? Can someone suggest a rewrite? Blackworm 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove AI and UN statement unsupported by sources.

I removed:

Amnesty International and the World Health Organization most often refer to the practice as female genital mutilation.

None of the sources support the claim that this term is what these organizations "most often" use. I have placed it here in case someone wishes to rephrase. Blackworm (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the info and will provide more appropriate citations this evening. As this is common knowledge, it does not require immense amounts of documentation. Also, the definition of euphemism is not contested as far as I know. Shell-Duncan's comment is a statement of fact, not an opinion and does not require the qualifier "Shell-Duncan asserts". Also - the editor revised the statement as a direct quote of Shell-Duncan's without acknowledgment of quotation. Phyesalis (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You reverted my removal of the above, without comment on it, commenting instead on a different change. If you can provide sources claiming that "female genital mutilation" is the term AI and WHO "most often" use, then the claim should be reinstated. Alternately, you could reformulate the sentence so that it is supported by the sources.

Regarding the change you are commenting on, your assertion that this is "common knowledge," or "a statement of fact, not an opinion" is insufficient for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. If you have sources claiming this, I invite you to present them, however be aware that there are sources which serve to counter that claim, and they will also be included should you choose to take this route. Please review the Misplaced Pages policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR:

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

— -- Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy

" while it is often hard for people to agree as to what is the truth, it is much easier for people to agree as to what they and others believe to be the truth. Therefore, Misplaced Pages does not use 'truth' as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth."

— Misplaced Pages's No Original Research policy

Blackworm, in order to avoid an edit war, let's take a step back. In light of the fact that:

• I clearly stated that I would be working on the citations this evening ("I have reinstated the info and will provide more appropriate citations this evening.") AND
• had in fact found a statement in one of the sources that backed up the intent of the statement AND
• added the quote to the citation AND
• noted in my edit summary that the AI/WHO statement needed to be reworded,

your revert is uncivil. You should assume good faith and wait to see the final product of positive editing (as oppose to just removing and reverting other editors' work). I did comment on both the citations and the change for euphemism. I was in the process of removing one source and rewording the statement when I stopped because I'd accidently deleted a citation. I am going to revert to the earlier version and continue my work - PLEASE, do not judge or revert my work until I have removed the inuse tag. Phyesalis (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it is not incivil for me to edit the article to conform to Misplaced Pages policy. Your behaviour here, however, is beginning to be. I believe you misinterpret Misplaced Pages's directive to assuming good faith; I suggest you review the guideline. Also, again, please review WP:NPOV and WP:OR for why your edits are being reverted. If you wish to test intermediate edits that still violate policy, I suggest you do so in your User space. If you wish to collaborate on an edit, post it here and others can comment or help make it conform to policy. However, it is not inappropriate and certainly not incivil to delete material in violation of policy. It is incivil, however, to demand that other editors not edit the article until you give your permission. Blackworm (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:Bite. Oddly enough, the completely uncited material on "male circumcision advocates" escaped notice. Perhaps this has to do with the dispute over on Talk:Circumcision and the RfC? The material I have cited is from secondary or tertiary sources and appropriately contextualized. Not one citation has been offered to support the POV that my material is not neutral. I do not demand that you do anything, I asked you not to WP:Bite me while I engaged in an edit. Using the {inuse} tag is not a violation, since it has been proposed by WP to reduce edit conflicts. Please review "major edit". Phyesalis (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your use of these tags to edit two sentences in the article, and apparent attempt to stop discussion here, is inappropriate. Your repeated baseless accusations of incivilty are also inappropriate and disruptive, and amount to incivility in themselves. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy before continuing to engage in these harmful actions. Blackworm (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned civility once, it was justified. If the brief mention of the WP:Bite guidelines offended you, I am sorry, but it is a legitimate observation - you are biting me. I am doing more than changing just two sentences as the edit summaries have shown - I am reworking the whole section. I would have never used the one tag if your haste hadn't made it a good option. I suggest you take your own advice. I think perhaps you are making a big deal out of nothing. I am actively trying to add sourced content - you are trying to censor in accordance to a POV. Please calm down. Perhaps you should wait until I'm finished with constructive edits before you accuse me of being disruptive and harmful. I have not violated any policy. If you are unhappy with others editing an article may I remind you of WP:OWN. I am sectioning off the terms so that you can add any sourced material you wish to include. Phyesalis (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have I have changed the statement (Blackworm was correct). The three refs did not support the statement as written. One of them contained relevant info and I have added the quote to the ref. I have removed the other two, added additional citations and changed the wording of the statement to reflect the info cited. I have also restructured the sections - each term has its own section (following in chronological order) to allow for sourced commentary. I also added a quote that discusses the change from "FC" to "FGM". I had a few issues working out the refs (that's what took me so long!). The inuse tag has been removed. Thank you for your patience. Phyesalis (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, your continued incivility is unwelcome. You write, "I am actively trying to add sourced content - you are trying to censor in accordance to a POV. Please calm down." This is unacceptable treatment of fellow editors, and must stop. Your recent edits are, for the most part, unsourced, poorly sourced, or violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by failing to attribute stated views to their source, but instead stating them as fact. This will require attention from other editors, as will your unexplained removal of properly sourced material. I applaud your efforts at being bold, however we cannot allow such violations of policy to stand. Blackworm (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate what I am saying in plain language, here is a quote from WP:NPOV (emphasis in original): "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." You repeatedly fail to abide by this rule in your recent edits. Blackworm (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm - you removed the content originally, I checked the refs. You were correct - the refs did not support the assertion. One secondary ref did discuss the use of the term by other agencies. I found another reliable secondary source and changed the statement to reflect the sources. None of the content I added was unsourced, all the sources I brought to the table were either from repsectable peer-reviewed journals or totally acceptable secondary sources. What "unexplained removal of properly sourced material"? I removed the statement YOU removed in the first place. If I did remove sourced material, I'm sorry, by all means point it out to me and I'll put it back in. Criticism is most constructive when accompanied by specific examples. Phyesalis (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize; the diff of your changes indicated to me that you had removed large paragraphs, but in fact you had moved them elsewhere. The remaining objections I have with some of your changes is noted in my last comment. An example is your addition of "The term female circumcision is a euphemism for the spectrum of genital cutting procedures." This is a prime example of opinion being cited as fact through lack of attribution. Another example is the part that begins, "The term "female circumcision" has been predominantly replaced by the term FGM."

Your sentence which ends, " whereas groups who oppose the stigma of the word "mutilation" use the term female genital cutting (FGC), or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)" seems to be WP:OR, and is nonsensical besides (why would they use "mutilation" if they are opposed to the supposed "stigma of the word?"

Again, I applaud your work here. It just needs to be made neutral. Blackworm (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a documented source from a peer-review journal source for the fact that "female circumcision" is a euphemism - the definition of "euphemism" isn't disputed and her use of it hasn't been challenged or found to be controversial in any way. Please provide a peer-reviewed reference from a respected and well known journal that explicitly states that "female circumcision" is not a euphemisim. Your other objection seems to have been mitigated by another user's edits.

However, your question of why some groups would use FGM/C suggests unfamiliarity with the subject. Perhaps this explains your inability to understand the article's cited material on the subject of terminology and your resulting opinion that the material is POV. Not this is a problem, just pointing it out to contextualize my response. It's not "nonsensical" at all once you get the basics down. "FGM/C" is used because, as FGM is the international standard, FGM comes first to retain its standardized and medicalized connotations. They modify FGM with /C with respect to cultural relativism, not because they object to the stigma of the word "mutilation" per se, they actively want to retain the standardized and medicalized connotations otherwise they'd just use FGC, rather the objection to the word is because of the stigma produced by its usage in a particular context, communities in which FGC is practiced. "Cutting" also has a closer etymological relationship to the various terms used in these communities. Thus, FGM/C provides a link between the two basic contexts of the broader international community and the individual communities where research and social outreach occur. Phyesalis (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "they" you keep referring to? I am not disputing the meaning of "euphemism." I am disputing that the term "female circumcision" meets the definition of "euphemism" merely because some people describe it as one. There is no need to find a source to claim the contrary -- it suffices to show some sources who use the term non-euphemistically -- for example in condemning the practice. Since the definition of "euphemism" is "the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the expression so substituted", and the terms "FGM" and "FGC" are more recent than "female circumcision," I posit that on the contrary, the terms "female genital mutilation" and especially "female genital cutting" are more correctly described as "euphemisms." (The idea that may "offend" or "suggest something unpleasant" is, of course, the idea that male and female circumcision are similar in many ways. This must be countered through the promotion of the euphemism FGM and FGC.) Your source's claim is notable, but ultimately it is an opinion, and opinions should be cited. Dictionaries still define "circumcising" as something done to males and females. No evidence of a "euphemism" there. Recent pro-male circumcision and anti-female circumcision activism to change the terminology to end comparisons before they begin, should be noted in Misplaced Pages, not followed by and supported by Misplaced Pages. Finally, please tone down your personal attacks. Nothing I have said to you warrants this barrage. Blackworm (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

FGC and Circumcision

I realize that I'm opening a potentially nasty can of worms, but I don't see how unreferenced OR pertaining to the issues on Circumcision relate to FGC. Obviously, some referenced material that specifically deals with the contentious issues between FGC and (male) circumcision could be appropriate in a particular context/sub-section/different page, but it is completely inappropriate to have them strewn throughout the article. Random refs to just (male) circumcision are irrelevant and OR, as this is not a page about (male) circumcision, nor is it about the issues between the two. I am removing all uncited material to (male) circumcision. Phyesalis (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are still problems in the major changes you made, which I've noted above. Why don't you fix those bits of text you added, rather than starting up something else? Just a thought. Blackworm (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded above, yesterday I believe. Your lack of response should not necessitate my developing mental telepathy in order to discern your thoughts. Since you've nothing positive or constructive, or even relevant to the subject of this thread, perhaps you should refrain from posting inflammatory opinion and do something useful. I'd like to point out that 2 other users have made changes to the page and have not had issue with my contributions. No one, other than you, has taken the time to criticize my changes. Other users have improved upon my contributions. They have not removed the information, complained about it, or made the issue personal as you seem to be doing. I have asked before, but I will repeat myself. Please stop. Further unconstructive and disruptive posts may result in an RfC:User. Perhaps we should both step away from the article for a day or two. Phyesalis (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I invite an RfC: User indeed. There is no basis for the attitude toward me you are displaying. WP:OR is not an optional policy. You have injected a good amount of unsourced and badly attributed material; I suggested you resolve this error before continuing. Please attribute opinions rather than stating them as facts. Blackworm (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank both editors for their contributions to this article. I agree that maybe it's best to step back for second. Both of you are valuable contributors, so I'm sure there's a way to alleviate this bit of tension. If need be, it may be productive to just summarize, restate, and/or provide diffs for the points of concern each editor has at the moment. Let's keep on making this article better and better! ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll step back for 48 hrs., starting with this post's time. If you think it should be longer, just post it and I'll be happy to comply without further comment.Phyesalis (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My points are three:

• Blackworm's behavior. His assertions that my material is unsourced or badly attributed are disruptive and untrue. 99% of my sources come from recognized peer-review journals. I did remove some poorly used sources, per Blackworm's complaint. Then Blackworm accused me of removing material without taking the time to see that I had reorganized the whole section. I have also edited some content based on pre-existing sources which may or may not come from top tier sources, however, the material I added is present in those sources. he makes a number of accusations but doesn't back them up. WP:STEAM?
• Blackworm has argued for the anachronistic use of terms without providing any documentation about the use of these terms within the greater international community. I have made 3 contributions to "History of Terminology", all sourced by peer-review journals plotting the change in terminology. The "Terminology" section exists specifically to track the changes in language and meaning. It is not sufficient to add one's unsourced opinion into what is otherwise a well-sourced section, particularly when one doesn't understand the context (As Blackworm has acknowledged that he does not understand the reason for FGM/C). To quote WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." In this Blackworm has failed to present a compelling argument for his disruption.
• To get back to the section's actual subject, unreferenced statements about male circumcision (or as now it reads, "genital integrity advocates") that are refuted by cited material in the body are inappropriate. First - what is a "genital integrity advocate"? Got a source on that? No. I looked it up - "Genital Integrity" is really about male circumcsion, not FGC, judging from the material I ran across. GI advocates have been criticized for comparing the two:

  "Nevertheless, the comparison of male circumcision to female genital mutilation by some groups, such as the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, is shameless and appalling. Female genital cutting is an act of subjugation, the removal of part or all of the genitalia and, sometimes, the near-complete suturing of the vulva, leading to high rates of infection and, during childbirth, death."

  Second - this isn't about what men think about their foreskins in comparison to female genitalia(no disrespect), it's an article about FGC. The assertion's unsourced, irrelevant and potentially harmful. I challenge it. If Blackworm cares to respond, I would appreciate specific examples of my "unsourced and badly attributed material", as I have asked him before. Phyesalis (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given you specific examples. I requote from above: An example is your addition of "The term female circumcision is a euphemism for the spectrum of genital cutting procedures." This is a prime example of opinion being cited as fact through lack of attribution. Another example is the part that begins, "The term "female circumcision" has been predominantly replaced by the term FGM."

Please restrict your discussion to the article. Irrelevant statements such as "female genital cutting is an act of subjugation..." may be viewed as soapboxing, which is inappropriate.

There is no reason to suppress comparisons of male and female circumcision found in reliable sources -- such comparisons are entirely appropriate here. I will restore some of the material you have removed, ensuring its compliance with policy.

Contrary to your apparent belief, "the greater international community" is of no relevance to Misplaced Pages when determining the meaning of simple English words. It is, however, relevant to the discussion of these terms, which should be balanced with opposing opinion. Your three contributions to "History of Terminology" are selected opinions, seemingly chosen from a point of view you support; the fact that many legitimate sources continue to use the terminology you are opposed to is relevant and should be noted.

Your accusing me of disruption is unfounded; I ask you again to remain civil. If you continue with your incivility, I will simply stop responding to you. My claims of incomplete attribution (and thus violation of WP:V) remain. You cannot state anyone's opinion as fact, especially in cases where there is significant controversy, and demonstratable evidence of the contrary. Blackworm (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term is not enough. WP policy clearly states this. You seem to choose to ignore this fact. And now, this is twice now you've accused me of doing something I haven't. Please review this diff in reference to your accusations (below).(Subjugation language was in article prior to my edit. I did not introduce it. I changed pre-existing language about "circumcision" to fit with the usage throughout the article, etc., etc....) Also, your position was proposed by another editor previously (see earlier discussions on this page) and consensus determined that this is not an appropriate page for comparisons between circumcision and FGC. You have still failed to produce any sources to back up your claim. You seem to be soapboxing. Consensus seems to argue against you. Please refrain from wholesale reversion of involved edits. Evidenced by the fact that you continue to accuse me of things I haven't done, and revert my contributions without legit justification, it seems our stepping back, summarizing and restating hasn't been very productive. Perhaps we should move onto the next stage is dispute resolution. Phyesalis (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the title of the article is "female genital cutting" and the first sentence of the article states it (incorrectly) to be synonymous with female circumcision, it is clear that comparisons and contrasts are appropriate. Your original research claiming "female circumcision" to be a euphemism remains in the article for now, but it must not remain for the reasons I have given. This also applies to the other original research you have added in the form of unattributed claims of fact. Since you have proven incapable of being civil, I invite you to pursue whatever dispute resolution you deem appropriate. I am about at the end as far as responding to your incivility. Blackworm (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, the unattributed claims are not technically original research, but rather a WP:V and/or WP:NPOV issue. From WP:OR: "If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight." To repeat the top of WP:V: "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The material you added is challenged, and therefore must be attributed. It is the opinion of your source; it is not the opinion of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages strives for a neutral point of view. Blackworm (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

archive old discussions

This needs to be archived badly.

I agree, this section does need to be archived, perhaps someone not involved in the current dispute could archive up to "Removal" (which is the beginning of the current dispute)? Any other thoughts from editors? Phyesalis (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits.

I reverted Phyesalis' recent edit as a violation of WP:NOR. The unsourced, unattributed assertion that "while FGC is not a religious practice, it is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures" specifically violates this policy, as does the corresponding rearrangement of material to match this POV. There are examples of inexplicably changing language away from "circumcision." There is a WP:NOR violation in the phrase "Another hadith often quoted is..." -- who says it's often quoted? We don't know. More examples: the long series of sentences after the introduction of Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa -- where only the first sentence is properly attributed as his belief; beginning sentences like "Using the hadith is specious because ..." clearly are presenting an argument rather than attributing an opinion, called for by WP:V. Generally, the edit is rearranging sourced material and inserting unsourced material in order to form an argument; this practice is specifically prohibited by WP:NOR; see especially WP:SYN. I suggest that in the future such edits be applied in much smaller forms, so that their validity and adherence to policy can be more specifically and individually addressed. Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, this is the second time you have accused me of something that I haven't done. Please review this summary of changes . The language of "subjugation" was there before I edited the passage. My edit summary clearly stated that I was working with prexisting material with a preexisting source. Second, I removed "often quoted" for the very reason you suggest, but by reverting all my changes, you put it right back to the original. Second, Dr. al-Awwa is the Secretary General of a group of religious/legal scholars. His opinion is that of an expert. Third, I introduced no new material. If you did some basic fact checking you would see that all the material I added was either from pre-existing sources or had been previously established by sourced material in the body of article (a la the UN(?) assertion that FGC "was not a product of religion alone". Since FGC predates both Christianity and Islam, and the prevailing view is that it is not a religious custom, praytell, where have I intro'd OR and SYN? Your apparent personal beef with me seems to have made you incapable of reading a basic page history diff. Please stop reverting my contributions. You don't know what you are talking about. This is another example of your steamroller disruptions. Phyesalis (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your rv., but changed the wording regarding "specious use". That is the only legitimate point you had (and only slightly, the info is intro'd as Dr. al-Awwa's opinion in a single paragraph and didn't nec. need an additional qualifier, but I added one just because.) No reason to change it now. Phyesalis (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you reverted the now changed material without previous discussion, and then have the temerity to accuse me of being uncivil (again). This behavior is disruptive Blackworm. Please stop your POV pushing and discuss changes. Phyesalis (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The change from your original problematic edit only partially addressed one problem I described in the above post dated 00:34, 29 November 2007. There remains the issue of unsourced attributions, unwarranted changes in article organization, unexplained changing of terminology, and the rearranging of sourced material to form an argument. Since I have already mentioned these problems, and you did not address them in your edit nor directly address them in your discussion, I reverted your change in adherance to WP:V. Further, you cannot violate Misplaced Pages's policy on civility with every discussion post you make, then demand discussion. Given your sustained hostility and personal attacks, and your seeming inability to directly understand and/or address objections to your edits, preferring instead to present irrelevancies (e.g., "Second, Dr. al-Awwa is the Secretary General of a group of religious/legal scholars. His opinion is that of an expert."), any discussion with you at this point is done solely as a courtesy. Blackworm (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm's objections

In an effort to avoid an edit war, I have chosen not to use my remaining two reverts to undo Blackworm's continued rv on "Cultural and religious aspects". Instead, I have posted a comment on his talk page and decided to take the last collection of accusations and respond to them in detail. I know this is long but I don't know else how to deal with the behavior. This section is a prelude to an RfC:User. I have tried to remain cool, I have tried to discuss this, I have provided mutliple references from peer-review journals, I have noted several of Blackworm's points and changed material accordingly, I have stepped back and a third party suggested that we both step back and all of this has proved to be unsuccessful. Blackworm continues to address his comments and accusations at me, not at the article, nor other users who have improved upon my contributions and tacitly deemed them appropriate. He has not provided a single piece of documentation for his varying claims of OR, POV, SYN and V. Blackworm contends that my contributions to "Cultural Aspects" are OR. He finds my intro statement "while FGC is not a religious practice, it is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures" to be particulary contentious. I argue that this is merely summation of cited sources provided in the body of the section. To support this argument:

• The article states that "UNICEF stated that when "looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with FGM/C status" sourced from a UNICEF fact sheet/report.
• Judaism - The article then provides sourced statements saying that FGC is not in Jewish sacred literature, nor is it practiced in Judaism, except by a single minority religious sub-culture in the past, no documentation has yet proven the continued practice.
• Islam - The Islam section states "While FGC predates Islam and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims, it has been discussed in some hadiths. FGC is not an Islamic religious practice, though some advocates will quote hadiths to support its practice in Islamic cultures. The meaning and legitimacy of such mentions are disputed by the greater islamic community. Genital modification and mutilation of is not endorsed by the Qur'an." There are 13 sources, the majority of which state that FGC is not a part of Islamic practice (including the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an). None of them state that FGC is a part of Islam, although some dismiss isolated sub-cultures which argue for it and then explain why they're not legit.

Blackworm contends that I introduced "Another hadith often quoted" and objected to it. However, reviewing the diffs show:

• The language predates my first edit to that section ]. I didn't add it, so it doesn't show up.
• In my second edit under line 202/203 "Another hadith often quoted" is in red in the previous edit (meaning that it had been present but unchanged in the first edit) and in red in my second edit (meaning that I too objected to the unsubstantiated quote and changed it to "One of the quotes used" this is supported by the source. The source is not mine. And when Blackworm reverted my edit twice, twice he reverted it back to language that he said he objected to. But let's compare the contraversial edit:

• Original text:

  Another hadith often quoted is `Aishah narrated an authentic Hadith that the Prophet said:"If the two organs to be removed by circumcision are met, then performing Ghusl (ritual bath) is obligatory."(This Hadith is in the well-known books of collections of Prophetic Hadiths , written by Malik, Muslim, At-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and others) Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Secretary General of the World Union of the Muslim Ulemas states "such an argument can be refuted by the fact that in Arabic language, two things or persons may be given one quality or name that belongs only to one of them for an effective cause."

• My edit:

  While some scholars, such as Sheikh Sayyid Sabiq, author of Fiqh As-Sunnah argue that "adiths stating the legality of female circumcision are da`if (weak); none of them is sahih (authentic)", other scholars argue that authenticity alone does not confer legitimacy. One of the sayings used to support FGC practices is the`hadith (349) in Sahih Muslim: Aishah narrated an authentic Hadith that the Prophet said:"When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory." Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Secretary General of the World Union of the Muslim Ulemas states that while the hadith is authentic, it is not evidence of legitmacy. In idiomatic usage, the Arabic for "the two circumcision organs" is a single word, orkhitaanaan, where the plural of one word is used to denote not two of the same form, but two different forms characterized as a singular of the more prominent form. While the female form is used to denote both male and female genitalia, it is identified with the prominent aspect of the two forms, which in this case is the male circumcised organ. The connotation of circumcision is not transitive. Using the hadith is specious because "such an argument can be refuted by the fact that in Arabic language, two things or persons may be given one quality or name that belongs only to one of them for an effective cause."

• Blackworm's current revert:

  Another hadith often quoted is `Aishah narrated an authentic Hadith that the Prophet said:"If the two organs to be removed by circumcision are met, then performing Ghusl (ritual bath) is obligatory."...

Blackworm argues that my edit regarding the al-Awwa paragraph under "Islam" was OR. When I responded and explained the usage and subsequent modification of text based on his argument, Blackworm characterized my response as an "irrelevancy". Can I get a WTF?

I went back to the ref'd source and all the material I found was in there. Now, I think my edit makes the paragraph much more comprehensible. Blackworm objected to the unattributed use of "specious" but if you look in the ref, that's nothing controversial. But in attempt to find some peace-bringing compromise, I changed it to "Dr. al-Awwa continues arguing that the hadith is specious because..." but nothing will satisfy him. He reverted it again without discussion. Seriously can I get someone else's input on this? Phyesalis (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Female Genital Mutilation: Legal, Cultural and Medical Issues, by Rosemary Skaine; McFarland 2005, ISBN 0-7864-2163-3.
2. Information Package on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention:Insert 1, World Health Organization."Male circumcision is the surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin of the penis."
3. Nirit Ben-Ari (May 2003), "Changing tradition to safeguard women: Villagers join campaigns against female genital mutilation", Africa Recovery, 17 (1): 4{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
4. UNICEF (2006-02-06). "UNICEF hails progress toward ending female genital mutilation". UN News Service. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
5. "International Zero Tolerance to FGM Day: Effective measures needed to protect girls from female genital mutilation" (Press release). Amnesty International. 2004-02-06. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
6. Female genital mutilation, World Health Organization, June 2000, retrieved 2007-03-10{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
7. Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Secretary General of the World Union of the Muslim Ulemas, "Female Circumcision Neither a Sunna, nor a Sign of Respect"(Al Alazhar, Cairo),