Mild Female Genital Mutilation

I think doctors who identify patients who have undergone FGM should be mandated to report it to their local health authority who should have someone tasked by legislation to investigate further.

In many cases it will be clear that the mutilation occurred many years ago in the country of origin, but if the victim has come to this country since 2003 and is young enough for it to be likely that FGM occurred after that date then the police should automatically be informed.

With all other forms of child abuse any medical or ancillary professional becoming aware of it has to report it to the police. I was a juror on a child abuse case where it seemed highly probable that the prosecution arose from an adult describing the abuse to a therapist.

The problem remains there have been no prosecutions.

Who remembers Foreign Secretary William Hague and Anjolie Jolie and the Summit they chaired ? They had a rough ride in the UK by some as they thought he was 'grandstanding' and she was a 'bimbo' . They actually did a damn good job worldwide bringing the subject of FGM, rape and other issues to the fore.

The MP Bill Cash brought forward an excellent Private Members Bill concerning FGM .

The Government amended, updated the 2003 law relating to FGM , last year if I am not mistaken.

Blimey even the QUEEN mentioned the Serious Crime Bill relating to FGM in her 2014 'Queens Speech'.

All these things occurred in the last 2 years , yet no prosecutions have taken place. The law is there , the knowledge is there, it's got to be the case the WILL is there.

I'm doing a free short course with FutureLearn called 'The Lottery of Birth'. FGM is discussed. Apart from some comments about immigration, Rochdale/Rotherham/Oxford (which are irrelevant) and the misconception that FGM is a totally Muslim phenomenon, this thread has been really interesting. By the way, FGM is officially outlawed in Saudi. I find both FGM and male circumcision abhorrent and I wonder how law makers justify outlawing one without the other. Surely it's an equality issue, although I realise that FGM does more permanent damage.

There's certainly plenty to think about arising from this thread. FWIW I think the way forward has to come from the people (not just women) who have been affected. I know some women are campaigning, but it would be really great if some men could come forward and describe how they've been affected by having a wife who's undergone FGM. There are some initiatives in some countries to educate women and, in some cases, to keep the 'celebration' without actually doing any physical damage.

A couple of links (there are many more) to some information about FGM:
www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-islamic-problem
www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.html

Nelliemoser. I was absolutely against circumcision anyway but had not realised just how prolonged the procedure is and the degree of pain involved. I think that is probably the worst thing I have ever seen.

It is no doubt true that in the majority of cases FGM has much graver long term physical and psychological effects and a greater risk of permanent disability or death than circumcision. Nevertheless, it is still an assault on a defenceless child and, to my mind anyway, should, like FGM, be made illegal.

There are many men who would disagree with that LullyDully. In the USA where circumcision is more common there is growing protest by men who are angry that their bodies were altered without their consent and they put forward a lot of evidence of the physical and emotional harm that has been done to them.

Perhaps we are straying from the point of the OP but I still don't understand why there is any need to compare male circumcision (which is also referred to as MGM by some) with FGM. Both are bad, both are wrong. Does it matter that one is worse than the other? And who's to say? That's exactly what the doctors supporting 'mild female alteration' are doing but it doesn't make it right.

A boy can recover from circumcision sadly a girl will never recover from fgm.

That is horrific NellieMoser but should be compulsory viewing for anyone considering doing this to their baby for non-medical reasons. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the video, the pictures were enough. I really can't believe we allow this in a so called civilised country, and without anaesthetic as well. Disgraceful.

My recollection of boarding school in the 1950s and early 60s is that the cavaliers and roundheads were pretty evenly divided.

Elegran, I am one of a family of girls so have no family experience of this but, according to my MiL in the small Buckinghamshire country town where DH was born it was automatic. DH was born at home, as most children in that area were, and about a week after the birth of a boy the District Nurse would come round, take the baby away for an hour or so and return him neatly snipped.

When my DS was born a number of my friends had DM/MiLs who queried why their sons were not being circumcised.

Horrible for a little baby........or anyone else.

lullydully I don't think male circumcision is comparable to fgm which is why we have changed the name from female circumcision.
The former involves a nick at a very young age ( horrible.as that must be.)

Dont view this if you are of a nervous disposition but it shows exactly what happens.
www.drmomma.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html

Look at the video of a male circumcision I posted earlier. That is not "just a nick."
When the child is that young the foreskin is not retractable and has to be peeled off the penis which much be excruciating enough.
Then they carry on to cut off the foreskin completely.

It surprises me that MOnica has said that "in the 1940s and 50s most boys were circumcised at birth" because circumcision would have been considered a purely religious operation in the familes of both my parents, and indicating that the parents were Jewish. One of my grandmothers was in fact half-Jewish but she would not have approved of circumcision of her sons or grandsons.

I have had no close observations of the private parts of public schoolboys, but I wonder whether they were circumcised for reasons of hygeine because of the spartan communal living conditions they were going to experience at school?

It is not the parents who need educating, in many cases it is the grandparents. In a society where age conveys respect, what Granny says goes. FGM is deeply cultural and is practised in parts of Asia and Africa routinely. We could legislate the practice out here if we really wanted, but to prevent young girls travelling back to their grannies would be difficult - but not impossible.

There are loads of cultural practices which are greatly against our culture, which are practised overseas. What about stoning for adultery? It would be lovely to police the world with our moral western views but sadly impossible. We can only act by example and outlawing these practices here, but it won't stop horrendous acts in other cultures.

How about the concept of cannabalism which gets thrown at us fro different religions? Eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood - how vile does that look to other religions?

Absent, in the 1940s and 50s I think most boys were circumcised at birth. DH was born to a state educated factory worker, so no history of privilege or private education there, and he was automatically taken away and 'done' when he was a week old. DMiL had no say in the matter.

David Cameron et al probably aren't. They are much the same age as my DS and by then it was almost impossible to get a boy circumcised even when medically necessary. When DS was 4 he needed a circumcision for medical reasons and the doctors, both acknowledged the need and were unwilling to do it.

The difference between circumcision and FGM is that it was generally done for hygiene reasons and once that reason was discounted the operations stopped.

I do think you are right to say that publicising the issue through a public health campaign is necessary. Posters up in schools, surgeries, hospitals and on public notice boards, with or without a television campaign would make it a public discussed issue like smoking or diabetes.

I have two, completely unrelated, thoughts about where this discussion has proceeded, but before I say a word I should like to make it clear that I am totally opposed to genital surgery (amateur or professional) on either sex unless for medical reasons.

I admit that I have no idea about baby boys now, but when I was a young woman, most public schoolboys were "roundheads" (i.e. circumcised) rather than "cavaliers". (We have lots of old Etonians in the present Government who, perhaps, regard circumcision as the norm –girls or boys. Who knows?) I never had an experience where his sexual pleasure seemed to be reduced because my male partner had been circumcised. This is clearly not the case with girls who have undergone FGM.

It is not a reasonable suggestion that all girls, or some girls because they seem to be at risk, should undergo what would be a fairly traumatic intimate exam. What would be a possibility is to reintroduce public health ads on the television to include FGM. They might make those for whom this is a cultural norm and others who are not aware of this practice think a little harder.

Galen I was in tears listening to the radio 4 play. It was horrifying and heartrending especially as I was listening in the car waiting to pick up my 4 year old DGD from nursery. How can any religion condone mutilating young children, boys or girls? I have listened to both sides of the arguments on various programmes previously and although I am generally a tolerant and open minded person I cannot see that this can ever be right in any culture or religion. Child abuse of any sort is wrong and should be prosecuted.

LullyDully I remember as a child being horrified when I heard about foot binding. I agree if this could be banned then so could FGM with a combination of education and punitive measures.

I have to say I understand the debate to be had re cultural mutilation whether it be circumcision or female genital mutilation.

But ye gods the practice/ actual physical degree of physical abuse of Female Genital Mutilation is so abhorrent, repugnant, dangerous, vile I can make a distinction. I may well be wrong and. I appreciate and totally take on board other posters comments and I do not want to get into yet another spat with anyone . I have just aired an opinion.

I don't think male circumcision is comparable to fgm which is why we have changed the name from female circumcision.

The former involves a nick at a very young age ( horrible.as that must be.) The later involves horrific cutting and sewing up of female genitalia which damages the woman/ girl for life. Men don't have permanent disfigurement. Jews and Muslims and many Americans have been circumcising boys for centuries.

I remember meetings some American woman who believed it was more hygienic. They were surprised I didn't consider it for my boys.

We must not confuse the two.

The ancient practice usually involves the partial or total removal of a girl’s external genitalia. In some cases the vaginal opening is also sewn up.

But some communities practice less invasive rituals such as pricking or nicking the clitoris.

The U.S. gynecologists, writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, argued that permitting more minimal procedures could allow families to uphold cultural and religious traditions while protecting girls from more dangerous forms of cutting.

It seems that what these particular gynaecologists are suggesting should be legal is almost directly comparable to male circumcision. How can we condemn them if we continue to permit male circumcision?

Male circumcision for medical reasons is fine - but not for any other reason. Wholly unacceptable.

I think we need someone to come on here who has had it done and is campaigning against it. I don't see that circumcision is comparable . It can be done for medical reasons can it not whereas there is no justification for FGM other than to deprive a woman of sexual pleasure . Perhaps Gnhq might oblige. We have a lot of foreign wives in this university city and they have tales to tell.

And quite frankly, the old practice of checking children's heads for nits, and eyesight and hearing tests bear no comparison to looking at their genitals.

I'd think they'd have to have a responsible adult in attendance (i.e. a parent, guardian or similar), and where would these examinations take place? Certainly not in a spare classroom...

Maggieanne , no there are no school nurses any more , no nit nurse or welfare checks either . My GC get nits constantly from school , they get treated all the time but if another child is not treated then they just catch them again . All the schools seem to be worried about now is league tables and perpetual testing , the children`s welfare seems to come quite low on the list . Hence children starving to death while still attending school !

There should be a high price to pay for those that do this, we can talk about this but when you actually think about what it really is, it just makes your body react to the pain that you imagine that these girls suffer. Years ago, at school, we always saw a nurse that gave a brief examination of every child, basic things like tests for colour blindness and a quick look to see how advanced you were towards puberty, do they still have the nurse/doctor visit? Do mothers take their child to "the welfare" to check on their progress. I must admit, I'm a bit out of touch with schools and young children.
It horrifies me to think of Daniel Pelko, I think that was the boys name, literally starving to death and the teachers doing nothing! Is that what life is now, people too scared to speak.

Margrete , Richard Dawkins is not saying that feminists agree with FGM just that they are very quiet about it . One would have thought it would be a very big issue with feminists but it doesn`t seem to be .