BMJ defends FGM

Maremia I have no clue why you think anyone on here needs things "explaining", nuanced or otherwise.

Or for someone so up themselves as to take on the role of "explainer".

Points of view - that's all we've all got on here and we're all entitled to 'em.

Three.

When I have more time I will look up how many people in the Uk have actually been prosecuted for this.

Criminal Offence: FGM has been a criminal offence in the UK since 1985. The current legislation, primarily the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (as amended by the Serious Crime Act 2015), makes it illegal to excise, infibulate, or otherwise mutilate female genitalia for non-medical reasons.
Penalties:
Performing FGM or helping it to take place carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
Failing to protect a girl under 16 from the risk of FGM (for those with parental responsibility) carries a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison.
Breaching an FGM Protection Order (a civil order to protect a potential victim) carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.
Extra-territoriality: It is a crime to take a British national or permanent UK resident abroad for FGM, even if the procedure is legal in that country. This law extends protection to UK nationals or residents regardless of where in the world the act takes place.
Mandatory Reporting: In England and Wales, regulated professionals (including doctors, nurses, social workers, and teachers) have a legal duty to report

Perhaps we, and women who have experienced fgm and campaigned on the issue for years are allowed to discuss why we don't like the article in particular the 'creep' of language which is nothing new to feminist campaigners. Perhaps we are allowed to do that without being told we must be rage baited by whichever newspaper others don't like.
I mean I think the bbc is incredibly weak around womens issues and safeguarding in general, however I try to avoid telling people who use the BBC that they can't think for themselves. Although I may start.

Far from defending FMG, the actual article, IMO, opens up debate. I am in no way defending these practices and the essay doesn't either but it does raise a number of questions about why we don't object to circumcision or labioplasty for non medical reasons whilst criminalising the very wide range of practices that constitute FMG. The authors of the essay also hold a wide range of different views. This is my interpretation of the article and I'm not a medical ethics expert but IMO suggesting that publishing this essay is defending FMG is like saying that publishing a murder mystery novel is defending murder! Surely, academics are entitled to have opinions and to discuss things in a scholarly manner even if some or perhaps many will disagree with their POV.

I wouldn’t give credence to anything I read in the Mail. Actually, thinking on, I’d never read it - full stop.

Yes love0C- The Telegraph headline is as follows:

" Journal of Medical Ethics article defends female genital mutilation"

In Ireland a couple were jailed after over-zealous medics suspected FGM. As the parents were of African origin, cultural bias and language issues played a part.
Female Genital Mutilation: Couple wrongly convicted could get compensation | Newstalk share.google/FPzMJc8PW7nFrNjEL
I'm not trying to defend FGM in the slightest, but there have been other types of cases where flawed medical evidence has led to wrongful convictions.

IOMGranDon't know how you've managed to interpret a very straightforward post into the wild statement that I think the BMJ are in favour of FGM

Does the article say that the BMJ defends FGM?
Does it? Is that what the article is saying?
That's what the OP seems to think it is saying, because the Daily Mail says so.
All this 'piling on' against another Poster trying to explain what the BMJ is saying.
Most of us know what FGM is. No one on this Thread has said they agree with it.

Galaxy

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

Me too.😄

I wonder if the DM purchase of the Telegraph will lead to some alignment of reporting style? The deal has been presented to UK Culture Secretary for consideration whther to trigger a public interest intervention notice and refer the merger to CMA.

Many concerns have been raised about media plurality due to the combined market share the acquisition would create.

In the Telegraph dated 14th December.

Which is the actual title of the thread started by Flippingheck.

Nannee49, why write this? The BMJ is not supporting FGM.

Think you're getting a bit mixed up IOMGran.

Nowhere have I said the BMJ supports FGM. What a ridiculous statement.

LemonJam

IOMGran- thanks for your 08.45 information and links.

It's no problem, I always try to see behind the headline and go to the source. Which is what we should all be doing these days, there is so much rage baiting. I checked the Trump statement of the Reiners to avoid going off half cocked, I was 50% thinking it was so bad he couldn't have written it, but there it was, on his TruthSocial page.

IOMGran- thanks for your 08.45 information and links.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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