BMJ defends FGM

I haven't read the article, I haven't seen the article. I did read an in depth piece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali born Dutch political activist, married to historian Niall Ferguson quite a while back who left the reader in no doubt just how awful and debilitating this practice is to the victim. This woman had this horrible procedure committed against her when she was 5 years old. She is a fierce critic of FGM and anything that she has to say on the subject would trounce pronouncements by whatever some lofty academic attached to the BMJ has to say on the subject and my first thought would be "have you had it done to you then?"

I've also read that doctors in this country have had patients who have ongoing problems as a result of that horror being inflicted on their person. As in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's case, the procedure takes place on very small children, which causes them enormous pain, there is no consent given as the victim is too young to make an informed choice. Who in their right mind would give their consent anyway. So as quoted above, academics, who claim this is stigmatising towards migrant communities, one wonders would they be men by chance Surely any woman could use their imagination as to the absolute horror and on going problems this barbaric act would cause them. There is no justification for this practice, it's a crime against girls and women.

Yes Ayaan Hirsi Ali is also a brave and interesting voice on this and other subjects.

Cultural suppression, there should be a lot more suppression of some of the culture of some migrant groups. We can do little about what goes on overseas, come to Britain you accept our standards.

TerriBull & Galaxy wise, measured words as always.

IOMGran

Yes, it is rage bait, classic example of.

I was not rage baiting and I resent your suggestion. I am genuinely upset by this article.

Nannee49

No love, directed at IOMgran, I was enraged by the practice long before some scholarly article, I don't need a peer reviewed, meta analysis paper to explain the pros and cons.

In any case, stop the practice, stop the stigma. Simple.

I am not defending the thing, I have always been vehemently against it. What I am saying, love, is that the framing is disingenuous and designed for well meaning people to get angry and hate a bit more on the doctors.

Galaxy

Just so people know who she is. She underwent fgm herself and has led an international campaign ( facing frequent horrendous abuse) against the horrors of fgm. But we need to put that aside because she wrote an article for a paper some people don't approve of.

The crux of the matter is whether or not the BMJ have approved or endorsed the practice. They have not, therefor you are being wound up. The BMJ condemn the practice.

Flippinheck

IOMGran

Yes, it is rage bait, classic example of.

I was not rage baiting and I resent your suggestion. I am genuinely upset by this article.

I was not saying you were rage baiting, I am saying you have been baited by it. Are you cross right now? What are you cross about? I can answer, FGM. Now you have associated the BMJ with FGM. Do you see how this works?

The article in the Daily Mail today is by London GP Dr Renee Hoederkamp who has her own slots on GB News. She is a highly intelligent and forthright woman and is not afraid to say what she thinks. She is a breath of fresh air on British TV.

She is totally against FGM having seen the dreadful consequences on women who had this barbaric procedure when they were very young. She often discusses FGM on GB News because although it is now banned in this country, it is still going on behind closed doors.

She makes it clear that those idiots still supporting it are NOT doctors but anthropologists and sociologists.

It is about the crerp creep of language something which any feminist will tell you has-been very dangerous over recent years.
I don't care what you think has happened to me.

Primrose53

The article in the Daily Mail today is by London GP Dr Renee Hoederkamp who has her own slots on GB News. She is a highly intelligent and forthright woman and is not afraid to say what she thinks. She is a breath of fresh air on British TV.

She is totally against FGM having seen the dreadful consequences on women who had this barbaric procedure when they were very young. She often discusses FGM on GB News because although it is now banned in this country, it is still going on behind closed doors.

She makes it clear that those idiots still supporting it are NOT doctors but anthropologists and sociologists.

OK so even a right wing pundit now clears the air on doctors. Good.

Galaxy

It is about the crerp creep of language something which any feminist will tell you has-been very dangerous over recent years.
I don't care what you think has happened to me.

But it's not the doctors. Again you conflate two things.

Dr Renee also made it clear that the article was in The Journal of Medical Ethics which is part of the BMJ Group. She is not saying it is the BMJ. She is totally disgusted by and against FGM and has been since she was training to become a Doctor and first became aware of it.

I haven't mentioned doctors I have described who nimco ali is.

Exactly whom are you referring to "well meaning people to get angry and hate a bit more on the doctors" hinting at a measure of stupidity in their well-meaning?

Well-meaning people can think for themselves.

That's why there's no call to gather the dim, great unwashed and hot foot it to Tyburn hill for a spot of hang, draw & quarter-ing.

To well-meaning people it was a barbaric practice and they put a stop to it.

To IOMGran

Nannee49

Rage bait?

Who needs rage bait?

If you're not ENRAGED by cutting out little girls' clitoris do you even have a brain?

The Daily Mail is among those newspapers which prefer always to emphasise the side of the news that they can present sensationally, and as throwing a bad light on a respected person or organisation. As it is currently planning to buy the Telegraph, perhaps there is already some pressure on the Telegraph to adopt Mail methods in advance.

The points to bear in mind are that the BMJ article "opens with commenting on the health risks as well as human rights failures." and " prior BMJ content consistently frames FGM as harmful with no health benefits." and that it "called for nuanced policy, not abandonment of opposition to non-consensual cutting." That is not the BMJ "defending" it as a practice.

In other words, shouting in rage and trying to enforce a different view on the countries where is it practised (which are often the same countries or communities which are already being stirred up by feeling that the liberal west is at war with their religion and whole culture) is likely to have less effect than keeping up a continuous steady resistance to a barbaric practice, banning it in all civilised societies, and publicising and disapproving of the health risks involved. It could even cause an increase of returning to the "good old ways"

Stick to your guns but stay calm and don't fire wildly.

Nannee49

To IOMGran

Why do you imagine doctors and me for that mater are pro FGM? Have a think.

Don't be led by inflammatory yellow press twisting of the news into following them down the dirty alley that smears the medical establishment with implications that they are all charging extortionate amounts, keeping people ill and dependent on them for their medications for maximum profit, taking political appointments for which they are unqualified, and defending barbaric practices for - well, what on earth would be the motive for them to defend FGM? Money - hardly. Power - how?

Money comes from selling lots of newspapers to see what your sensational headlines mean, or having lots of people use your website, where you sell advertising.

Power comes from having all those people read the biased stuff you publish and being influenced by it into thinking what you want them to think, hating the people you want them to hate, and voting for the politician or the party you want them to.

God the condescension is unbelievable. It just makes me laugh these days.

Foxie, here it is:

jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/early/2025/12/14/jme-2025-110961.full.pdf

I've not got time to read/digest it just now but here's the abstract:

Abstract
Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against ‘female genital mutilation’ (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous ‘standard tale’ obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse—ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term ‘mutilation’. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.

It sounds, to me, like a plea for respect, nuance and less simplistic representation in the media.

I can't say much about it though until I actually read it!

Funding - The Swedish research council Forte (2023-01165).
Competing interests - None
Provenance - Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed.

Don't need to think at your exhortation IOMGran but I am at a bit of a loss as to how you conflate you and doctors as being proFGM.

Obfuscation, it seems to me.

Maybe you need to stop and think of why an academic study is needed to demonstrate and explain the wider implications of a barbaric practice not left in the middle ages but which still continues, defiantly in the face of moral condemnation, to this moment, now and what do they expect their findings to add in the way of progress.

Maybe we should all read the (fairly short) paper then we know what we are talking about?

I will, and I'll probably be back later.

"To well-meaning people it was a barbaric practice and they put a stop to it."

Unfortunately, you can't step into another sovereign country and impose a law telling them to stop doing something, however much you abhor it.

If we had people from other countries going into Westminster to pass a law saying we are to slaughter all chickens according to halal laws, bleach the carcasses according to US standards, sell them by imperial weights and priced in £sd, and always cook them deepfried in batter, there would be riots in the streets.

In the US, there are states where not only abortions but even natural miscarriages are investigated as possible criminal acts, and where a woman undergoing a natural miscarriage can die because a dying foetus is causing her to be very ill, but cannot be removed because her life is secondary to the hopeless one that she is carrying. There are very strong moral forces in the states which would like to see our abortion laws altered to match theirs.

Nannee49

Don't need to think at your exhortation IOMGran but I am at a bit of a loss as to how you conflate you and doctors as being proFGM.

Obfuscation, it seems to me.

Maybe you need to stop and think of why an academic study is needed to demonstrate and explain the wider implications of a barbaric practice not left in the middle ages but which still continues, defiantly in the face of moral condemnation, to this moment, now and what do they expect their findings to add in the way of progress.

How do you figure that the BMJ support FGM? Did the BMJ commission the study? No they did not. And as for Galaxy, condescension is how she interprets increasingly desperate efforts to make people read and understand what was actually written.