To give you an idea, the most common and almost least-severe form of FGM, called FGM Type I, consists of a removal of the clitoral hood and far more often than not the clitoris itself. This form is typically less analogous to male circumcision and more analogous to cutting off a boy's penis. There is one subset of FGM I that is very analogous to male circumcision, where only the prepuce of the clitoris is cut off, however this by far less common than clitoridectomy and is in the vast minority of FGM assaults (I hesitate to use the word 'procedure' because that seems to me to legitimize it). Bear in mind that this is the least severe of the common forms of FGM.
The other forms are typically more severe. FGM Type II consists of removal of the clitoris, clitoral hood, and labia, while FGM Type III (infibulation) is the most severe and usually consists of removal of all of the above, and fusion of the wound to leave a small hole for urination and menstruation. Type IV is a catch-all for any other form of FGM, and ranges from acts less severe than FGM Type I to nearly as severe as FGM Type III, all of which are far less common than those of Types I, II, and III.
In all cases, these acts are usually done without anaethetic in unsterile conditions on children who are held down for it. They are so painful that girls have been known to pass out from the pain and break their own bones with the force of their struggle. In addition, all forms of FGM are associated with high risks of lifelong complications, including increased risk of infertility, increased risk of pre-eclampsia and other pregnancy disorders, increased risk of uterine infections, and severe pain with menstruation in addition to uniformly severe effects on the victim's sexual health, as well as short-term complications ranging from severe pain to death. Though it's hard to get the stats on it due to underreporting of complications and mortality, most people working in areas where it's prominent peg the mortality rate of these acts at about 10%.
Wikipedia has a fairly good article on it if the WHO link doesn't work for you (it's not working for me for some reason).
marinerachel wrote:We just shouldn't equate the two as it's extremely dismissive.
rumblestiltsken wrote:Her take on things was one I had not heard fully expressed before, and I am interested in hearing what everyone here thinks.
Xanthë wrote:It’s also not uncommon for any FGM-related discussions, anywhere, to suffer a virulent invasion of “What About The Menz” which only serves to underline that the discussion should briefly acknowledge the common element of the undermining of bodily autonomy, and then the discussion of MC/MGM should be kept to a separate thread where it won’t constitute a derail.
(Did anyone notice the offensive idiot called “Dick Scalper” falling into this pattern elsewhere here?)
Xanthë wrote: reference to another thread
ceepolk wrote:yes they are and no they shouldn't.
marinerachel wrote:Only bundled when discussing the ways in which they are comparable. They differ overwhelmingly however and are both complex nuanced issues which need to be dealt which seperately.
Diverting the topic from either to the other is of course a fairly transparent tactic of relativisation.
"I oppose all genital mutilation of children asides from issues of informed medical necessity"
marinerachel wrote:The difference is in how the procedure is performed. The circumstances are nowhere near comparable nor are the risks. Little girls having their clitoral hoods cut off aren't anaesthetised having the procedure performed by skilled medical professionals in a sterile setting.
Even with the same piece of tissue being removed, what is done to a little girl in Sudan is vastly different from what it done to an infant boy in Ontario.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Countess_Isolde and 1 guest