BMJ defends FGM

Iam64

It’s increasingly difficult to discuss ‘difficult issues ‘ on gransnet because complex issues seem inevitably to result in the demand for simple answers
Like FGM is bad, arrest any mother who doesn’t run away with her daughter to prevent the barbaric practice. Never mind that mum doesn’t want her or her daughter to step away from all they know.
Who will feed them keep them safe?

That one has got my head going round in circles.

To ask "Who will feed them keep them safe" - when one way or another they could get fed (ie in the context of - whats left of - our Welfare State). Obviously it's very far from "keeping them safe" to have the poor child still near the agressor (yep the person or people wanting this done to said poor child are the "agressor" and the last thing to do is to keep that child near someone who is such a threat to her).

GrannyGravy13

I am equally against circumcising 8 day old baby boys in the name of religion

FGM is barbarism to us, but is as normal in some tribes as circumcision is to Judaism.

I see your point, but (big huge BUT), FGM causes huge pain, it stops that female EVER getting any pleasure from sex and can cause lifelong physical and emotional issues.

Iam64

It’s increasingly difficult to discuss ‘difficult issues ‘ on gransnet because complex issues seem inevitably to result in the demand for simple answers
Like FGM is bad, arrest any mother who doesn’t run away with her daughter to prevent the barbaric practice. Never mind that mum doesn’t want her or her daughter to step away from all they know.
Who will feed them keep them safe?

Personally I am all in favour of a "chat" style of whatever, and an indepth thread on the same issue sometimes.

Very true Cossy.

Personally I never ever once had a circumcised boyfriend that seemed to be any "different" in any way to me, traumatised, in pain, etc etc. It simply didn't seem to occur to any of them to have any negative feelings whatsoever about it - emotionally or physically. It was more a case of "shrug - so what?" that would have about summed it up it seemed and the thought never even seemed to cross their mind to think about it. So - as long as a baby is given anaesthetic as appropriate in the case of that at the time = I don't see any problem with it and it's better for their health and for their partners health. Better all round imo. As long as there is the use of anaesthetic (and I don't know whether they do use anaesthetic or no to do that) = I don't see it personally as to why anyone would be against it.

The female version is a very very different thing - even if they used anaesthetic for it = it's just plain wrong/ruins a womans body permanently/can't begin to think how bad it must be to have a "relationship", a pregnancy or whatever and it's unmitigated evil to do that to a girl.

That had me just doing a quick google re anaesthetic or otherwise for boy babies.

Bear in mind I was asking about a specific country and the answer was "Probably not - about 70 odd years ago when it was a very poor country. But it then changed to "Now it's changed from a poor country to a very very rich country indeed = yep anaesthesia is now very much the norm". Probably the same applies to the other countries concerned. So - very unlikely to be a male problem any longer these days - as no pain. So simply not an issue for men basically - though it is very much an issue for women still.

Rosie51

I know of two little boys who were circumcised (at different times) for medical reasons at ages 4 and 7. I'd hate for them to be regarded as 'mutilated'. Medical circumcision is quite separate and different to girls undergoing FGM that is done to prevent 'immorality' and to deny women sexual pleasure.

Why do labioplasty then? It still happens here, I know someone whose genitals werent considered "right" and as an adult she doesn't seem happy about the surgery that was done.

Circumcision of boys should also be banned unless medically justified. Why anyone would consent to it is beyond me. I have a Jewish friend who refused to let it be done to her son. All surgeries carry dangers, cutting off bits of baby boys is awful. There was an infamous American case where twin boys were circumcised and one completely lost his penis. Why take that risk? I believe he committed suicide.

CariadAgain

Very true Cossy.

Personally I never ever once had a circumcised boyfriend that seemed to be any "different" in any way to me, traumatised, in pain, etc etc. It simply didn't seem to occur to any of them to have any negative feelings whatsoever about it - emotionally or physically. It was more a case of "shrug - so what?" that would have about summed it up it seemed and the thought never even seemed to cross their mind to think about it. So - as long as a baby is given anaesthetic as appropriate in the case of that at the time = I don't see any problem with it and it's better for their health and for their partners health. Better all round imo. As long as there is the use of anaesthetic (and I don't know whether they do use anaesthetic or no to do that) = I don't see it personally as to why anyone would be against it.

The female version is a very very different thing - even if they used anaesthetic for it = it's just plain wrong/ruins a womans body permanently/can't begin to think how bad it must be to have a "relationship", a pregnancy or whatever and it's unmitigated evil to do that to a girl.

I think the baby boy who lost his whole penis due to a medical accident would have a different view if he was alive.

Iam64

It’s increasingly difficult to discuss ‘difficult issues ‘ on gransnet because complex issues seem inevitably to result in the demand for simple answers
Like FGM is bad, arrest any mother who doesn’t run away with her daughter to prevent the barbaric practice. Never mind that mum doesn’t want her or her daughter to step away from all they know.
Who will feed them keep them safe?

Have you ever heard Edna Adan Ismail? An amazing woman, British trained midwife who became the wife of the president of Somalia, it maybe Somaliland. Her father was a doctor, he would not have FGM for his Edna. When he was away from home his wife and her mother had the FGM done. She said her father cried when he found out what they'd done.

I will never forget listening to that courageous woman who trained and then went back to her country and opened a hospital for women and their babies. Babies she could never have because of what her mother and grandmother did.

These women believe they are doing the right thing for their daughter's however much we can't understand it. Education is the answer.

She campaigns for an end to FGM.

CariadAgain

That had me just doing a quick google re anaesthetic or otherwise for boy babies.

Bear in mind I was asking about a specific country and the answer was "Probably not - about 70 odd years ago when it was a very poor country. But it then changed to "Now it's changed from a poor country to a very very rich country indeed = yep anaesthesia is now very much the norm". Probably the same applies to the other countries concerned. So - very unlikely to be a male problem any longer these days - as no pain. So simply not an issue for men basically - though it is very much an issue for women still.

Check orthodox Judaism where anaesthesia is less likely to be used.

The one massive omission to all this narrative is consent.

Is there any process in this important cultural tradition - to some - that allows a female to agree to their clitoris being cut?

My comments on this thread are in no way supportive of FGM. It’s abhorrent, illegal in the UK and I can’t find anything could justify the practice. IMO we need to work with the communities who are settled in the UK to try and influence against it.
Worriedwell, yes I’ve heard of Edna Ismail and other courageous women who live with the physical and emotional legacy of FGM. Commenting on the need to work with communities doesn’t mean I support FGM, or oppose prosecutions

Maremia

Well, the premise of the post is that the BMJ has published an article defending FGM.
Now, either it has, or it has not.
As you say, probs not everyone has actually read the printed words.

However, this being a GN Thread, the focus seems to have morphed into a discussion around the actual 'practice', with which I get the impression, most of us disagree.
And now other issues of cultural 'practices' have been raised.
The OP is busy elsewhere and has not been back to comment and/or amend the Thread head.
For me, there has been some new information about FGM.

Actually it's something we all agree on, amazingly. The issue is was the BMJ defending FGM and the answer is thy weren't. The Post title is misleading and is informed by Daily Mail, unsurprisingly.

Nannee49

The one massive omission to all this narrative is consent.

Is there any process in this important cultural tradition - to some - that allows a female to agree to their clitoris being cut?

Or an eight day old baby boy. No child should have bits of their body removed for cultural or religious reasons. It is barbaric.

As in we all agree on the fact that FGM is an appalling mutilation of little girls who will suffer a lifetime of effects from it. Unlike male circumcision, which I personally don't see the need for either.

Iam64

My comments on this thread are in no way supportive of FGM. It’s abhorrent, illegal in the UK and I can’t find anything could justify the practice. IMO we need to work with the communities who are settled in the UK to try and influence against it.
Worriedwell, yes I’ve heard of Edna Ismail and other courageous women who live with the physical and emotional legacy of FGM. Commenting on the need to work with communities doesn’t mean I support FGM, or oppose prosecutions

She is amazing.

I didn't for a moment think you were in favour of FGM.

For everyone who is against FGM, and for those who are concerned about how to keep girls safe from it, within their communities where this practice is the norm, have a look at how suttee was managed to be eradicated in India.
It can be done.

IOMGran

As in we all agree on the fact that FGM is an appalling mutilation of little girls who will suffer a lifetime of effects from it. Unlike male circumcision, which I personally don't see the need for either.

There can be medical reasons for male circumcision but that is the only time it should happen. Boys can also suffer lifetime issues like the accident when a boy had his whole penis removed. Maybe issues are usually less severe but does that mean we should take those risks on behalf of a baby?

I don't think it is helpful to have a hierarchy of which damaging procedures we allow on children.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8464584/

Anyone who thinks male circumcision isn't a big problem maybe read this link. Warning be careful of scrolling down as there are graphic photographs of the damage.

Anyone in favour of doing this to their perfect baby/grandson?

I’m opposed to male circumcision as well, other than for medical reasons

I find this early obsession with genitalia unsettling.

Thanks worriedwell

Nimco ali has some interesting point in that the campaigning and language around fgm came predominantly from the women who experienced it as girls.

Was that for or against the procedure?

The communities, from wherever in the world, who choose to make their lives here - I'll say a very clear pre-emptive...I do not have a problem with that...know that there are practices and traditions with which they will not agree but they choose to emigrate anyway.

It's absolutely disingenuous to then take issue with so called Westernised thinking in a matter which causes lifelong suffering and which is not only a frowned upon practice but a crime.

The whole article in the BMJ labours to point out that some Western viewpoints are damaging, minimalising and derogatory of different cultures, stating adornment, tightening, trimming of female genitalia etc are cultural things in Western society without ever acknowledging these practices are the result of choice not coercion.

I wonder who funded the research?

Re male circumcision: DDs friend married a Jewish chap and had a baby boy. A special chap (not a doctor) had to come up from London to do it. The concept of cutting this little baby was unbearable. I don't know how the mother allowed it or coped at all.

Against Maremia.

It's interesting that the issue of language has been raised because that is an issue that is discussed in the essay. It questions if the use of language like "mutilation" makes it more difficult to discuss these practices in an open way.
They don't use this example and it's purely mine and obviously doesn't explain the thinking that well but imagine a conversation between a vegan and a meat eater. Does it aid the conversation if the vegan tells the meat eater that what they are doing is barbaric, cruel or completely unnecessary? Or does the use of that language tend to make the meat eater defensive, angry, less open to a discussion?

If certain practices are an embedded practice in some countries and from what I've read, the practices around what we call FMG actually cover a very wide range of practices, some very similar to circumcision, does the use of judgmental language proscribed by Western cultures, help or hinder those, like me who would like to see these practices completely cease. That's actually quite an important issue raised in the essay (not that most people seem to have read it).