Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

'Ritual' cutting?

Re opening sentence: "ritual cutting or removal" none of the sources used appear to use the word 'ritual' in defining FGM, and I'm not sure what it means in context. Non-medical? As part of "rites of passage'? Done for religious/cultural reasons? The term seems 'loaded' and clearer terminology would seem apt. (please ping if replying directly as I do not watch this page) Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "ritual" appears 8 times in the article (once in the lead with the rest in notes) so "none of the sources" seems unlikely. I doubt that any word or any sentence could encompass why FGM is performed but I regard "ritual" as merely having its ordinary English meaning. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The word isn't used in the sources attached to that sentence. Forgive my stupidity, but how the ordinary English meaning applies is not clear to me. The ordinary English meaning is probably "as part of religious rites" or "done in a ritualistic manner". Does 'cutting' become less mutilatory to WHO etc if it is done by white-coated people with no religious motive, simply mistaken science? Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually the word is used once in the article, the other 7 uses are in book titles. So the meaning - in this context - is not expanded anywhere in the article. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that the word isn't used in the sources but the word is used so often in the sources that it appears in the titles of the sources? A simple google search finds many, many sources that describe it as ritual, in the normal meaning of the term. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the meaning of the word is not made clear in the text and is not self-evident as the word has numerous uses (often as part of religious practice, "the ritual of sharing bread and wine", the "ritual slaughter of animals for halal/kosher meat" but also looser to mean 'habitual' or done in a repeated, systematic way "then began the daily ritual of getting ready for work", or sometimes something done in a ritualised ie quasi-religious fashion).

I guess that the meaning here is something like "usually done for cultural/religious reasons" or "done as part of a 'rites of passage' " - which are the most common reasons for this practice AFAIK, but if that is the meaning, why not say it?

My reason for posting was wanting clarity - but an indirect implication of the present phrasing is that if 'cutting' is done for non-ritual reasons, it ceases to be FGM - which is I suspect not the position of campaigners against the practice/health professionals etc - who I think would be equally against such cutting if the justification were 'hygiene' or some other non-religious reason and if it were done by a medical professional, rather than an 'elder'. Any 'cutting' that is not done for a recognised, explicitly medical reason, is surely FGM to most authorities?

My question is not mainly whether sources justify the use of the word (they may justify much stronger adjectives - "barbaric" etc.), but what useful information it conveys. Pincrete (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: your question, "Does 'cutting' become less mutilatory to WHO etc if it is done by white-coated people with no religious motive ...?", yes. The last section of the article explores some of the inconsistencies; see the paragraph beginning "The WHO does not define procedures such as". SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I did read that section, but the lead is pretty clear "Since 2010 the United Nations has called upon healthcare providers to stop performing all forms of the procedure, including reinfibulation after childbirth and symbolic "nicking" of the clitoral hood." So my point was valid - WHO, UN etc want to stop most of these procedures - not simply move them from crude backrooms into clean operating theatres. In so far as it is relevant, I would support them in that if I had the slightest influence. The last section you are referring to relates mainly to "cosmetic" or other "plastic", elective surgery, done for specified reasons, not simply because the person is female.

No replies have actually tackled my initial question - what does the word 'ritual' mean in context? Two replies imply that the meaning is self-evident? Not to me it isn't. If I am right about "done for cultural reasons" or "routinely done for non-medical reasons" or some-such, why not say that rather than a somewhat 'loaded' and fairly vague term?

BTW, of course I read the text next to the picture. Saying that some African people are resistant to a renaming 'imposed by others', is not quite the same thing as 'criticising' the rename. I grant you, she certainly isn't endorsing the name change either, but why she says this seems more informative than whether she approves/disapproves. Pincrete (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete, for the record, we did discuss "ritual" before; see Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 11#Misleading statement in the lead. I left it alone because it seemed somewhat okay to retain "ritual" and because of the infobox definition. Well, that, and I leave the article to Slim to handle. But as the discussion shows, I do see where you are coming from, and Johnuniq also considered if "ritual" was best. That stated, I also see where Slim is coming from. Other than what I stated back in 2014, I don't have anything else to state on the matter. If you reply, I ask that you don't ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

'Non-practicing country'?

What does it mean to be a 'practicing country' and a 'non-practicing country'? Isn't this a very arbitrary and misleading distinction? As far as I know, FGM is practiced in virtually every country, from negligeable to endemic. Wouldn't it be better to put it in relative terms rather than in absolutes? Does the literature give any rationale for the term 'non-practicing country'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, if you google FGM and the terms "practicing countries" and "non-practicing countries", you'll find sources, including medical/academic sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've restored File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2016.svg, the map based on UNICEF figures, and removed File:Composite FGM world map.svg. The latter seems to be original research, based on different types of sources, including news sources; it isn't clear why those countries were chosen or who calculated the percentages. The UNICEF map is based on nationally representative surveys. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction within page on prepuce (clitoral hood) reduction

In the #Comparison_with_other_procedures section, it is claimed that "The WHO does not define ... clitoral hood reduction as FGM". This is in direct contradiction with an earlier claim in the article (Classification/Types section), which is that there exists within WHO classifications the "cut, some flesh removed" category. And since there is also a less damaging category (Type IV) of FGM that includes nicking without flesh removal, it would stand to reason that prepuce reduction would also be included as either Type Ia or Type IV.

Furthermore, the source used for this claim that clitoral hood reduction is not considered FGM actually contradicts the claim(!) in the very first sentence where it states that FGM "refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia"...while at no point does the source mention clitoral hood reduction directly. For that matter, the source never makes any judgement on labiaplasty either, nor does it even use the term, but it does again define a less-damaging procedure (labia stretching) as a form of FGM.

I would suggest this sentence, and its source which does not support it, be removed.

73.3.116.105 (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you read the section, "Comparison with other procedures", or even the sentence that you partly quoted, it explains the situation: "The WHO does not define procedures such as labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction as FGM, but its definition aims to avoid loopholes, so several elective practices do fall within it." The section elaborates briefly and cites two researchers who have objected. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not taking issue with the claims of the section as a whole, but with its use of WHO as a source, which does not support it in the link given. I have gone to the linked Labiaplasty§Criticism article which is likely where this came from, and have made the same criticism. 73.3.116.105 (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in this article came from another article. Which WHO source is being used incorrectly, and in which position? Please give the footnote number. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The WHO source I already gave, but there it is again. It is listed as footnote 250, immediately following the sentence I am taking issue with. What I mean by "came from another article" is that it was likely posted there first, and copied over to this section. This is because it is making nearly identical claims using the same source, and as I noted this section itself has a link back to that section on the other page.73.3.116.105 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you find something identical to this article elsewhere, it was copied from here. Nothing in this article was copied from another.

Re: footnote 250, the sentence it supports—"The WHO does not define procedures such as labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction as FGM, but its definition aims to avoid loopholes, so several elective practices do fall within it."—summarizes p. 28 of the 2008 WHO/interagency statement, particularly:

"Some practices, such as genital cosmetic surgery and hymen repair, which are legally accepted in many countries and not generally considered to constitute female genital mutilation, actually fall under the definition used here. It has been considered important, however, to maintain a broad definition of female genital mutilation in order to avoid loopholes that might allow the practice to continue."

What do you see as unsupported? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I had missed a couple words there when skimming over that bit before. In any case, I still maintain my criticism of the sentence as given. "It is not generally considered" is WHO's estimation of public opinion, not their own definition. In fact, they specifically say that cosmetic surgery falls "under the definition [of FGM] used here". The implication given in the sentence at issue is that cosmetic surgeries specifically other than labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction fall within FGM definitions, but those two do not, which again is not a reasonable description of the source text.

My try at better sentence: "The WHO's definitions of FGM do include elective cosmetic procedures in order to avoid loopholes, while acknowledging that these procedures are not generally considered genital mutilation." Ugh, it's impossible to write this without it getting weasel-wordy. There is an implied "some" at multiple points in there. Since some things that the WHO sincerely considers FGM could be argued to be cosmetic and elective in nature, I don't see how we can list any specific ones such as labiaplasty or clitoral hood reduction. The WHO is purposely vague on the issue, so any sentence using them as a source must be equally vague. I still think it's better if the sentence was struck entirely. 73.3.116.105 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying now. I'll try to word it differently. The point is that there's a contradiction between theory and practice, and the WHO is aware of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Does this work better? "Cosmetic procedures such as labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction do fall within the WHO's definition of FGM, which aims to avoid loopholes, but these elective practices are generally not regarded as FGM." SarahSV ^(talk) 22:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's much better. Maybe "but notes that these elective practices are generally not regarded as FGM" for the last bit? I don't know if that's necessary or not, either way works for me.73.3.116.105 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added "the WHO notes that". Thanks for pointing out the problem with the sentence, and I'm sorry that I was so slow on the uptake. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

NSW Australia case

A group of people were convicted of FGM NSW Australia. However recently, all 3 were acquitted because the 'khatna' procedure they carried out did not equate to FGM. This case has been reported here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5b68d25ce4b0b9ab4020e71c%7Cpublisher=New http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-11/genital-mutilation-convictions-overturned/10108106 https://femalecircumcision.org/not-a-mutilation/ I will add the information as a {{efn}} in the article. Muffizainu (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The decision doesn't say what you're implying. It's too long to read through, but the key point is that the court appears to have accepted the defence claim (or ruled that the Crown failed to establish otherwise) that the defendant(s) hadn't carried out "khatna" but "symbolic khatna".

The issue seems to be a flaw in local legislation, which the court suggests be corrected: "For completeness, if the intention of the legislature when enacting s 45 of the Crimes Act was to encompass all forms of female genital mutilation, then in our opinion, legislative amendment is necessary in order expressly to incorporate the fourth classification of female genital mutilation recognised by the World Health Organization and recommended to be prohibited by the Family Law Council" (para 523; also see para 524).

In any event, even if it had concluded otherwise, one case in Australia has no bearing on the sentence: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised ... by the Dawoodi Bohra in India." Sources: Diane Cole, "UNICEF Estimate Of Female Genital Mutilation Up By 70 Million", NPR, 8 February 2016, and Pam Belluck, "Michigan Case Adds U.S. Dimension to Debate on Genital Mutilation", The New York Times, 10 June 2017. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect:

1. The case concluded that the procedure done to the two Bohra girls in Australia did NOT amount to a "mutilation". Its stated on para 521, cited below again for your reference:

"For the reasons set out above, we have concluded, on balance, that the extrinsic materials relied on by his Honour do not permit a construction of “mutilates” that departs from its ordinary meaning and we consider that its ordinary meaning connotes injury or damage that is more than superficial and which renders the body part in question imperfect or irreparably damaged in some fashion. It follows that we have concluded, with the greatest of respect for his Honour’s careful analysis of the legislation, that his Honour misconstrued the meaning of “mutilates” and hence misdirected the jury as to an essential element of the offence. "

2. Your focus on the word "symbolic khatna" is also incorrect. Yes, the circumciser had said that during cross examination, but this judgement does not give that any weight. The trial judge decided that extent of what was done was irrelevant and that no matter what the extent, it ought to be regarded as a mutilation. The appeal judges overturned that and clearly said that it was NOT a mutilation and therefore not a crime. The UNICEF article you cited also confirms that "the data is not robust” in regard to the Dawoodi Bohra community.

3. To answer your question. Yes, one case in Australia DOES have bearing on the sentence, because the entire debate revolves around whether the practice of 'khatna' or 'khafd' by the Dawoodi Bohras equates to FGM or not. Australia was the first ever case involving the community, and that confirmed there was no "mutilation".

Secondly, the article you cited about the Michigan case clearly mentions the lawyers counter position: "“What she did does NOT meet the definition of female genital mutilation,”. That case has yet to start, so there's no reason to jump to conclusions on the practice and whether it is or isn't FGM. Let the courts decided that.

This position (that the Dawoodi Bohra practice isn't FGM) is also being tested and challenged in the India High Court. You may refer to the following articles:

https://www.livelaw.in/female-genital-mutilation-dr-singhvi-objects-the-illusory-classification-between-male-and-female-circumcision/ http://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/khatna-not-construed-female-genital-mutilation-technically-no-mutilation-sc-told-53660

So, concluding, the Australia case clearly states it wasn't "mutilation". If we can agree on that, it would add useful information to the Dawoodi Bohra practice in the larger debate of FGM, because as you may already know, the “M” in FGM is for the word “mutilation”. This is why it needs to go into the notes. Muffizainu (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Assuming what you say is correct, the conclusion would be that a single court in a single case in a single country reached a decision regarding whether the legal definition of "mutilation" applicable in that jurisdiction and the judge's statement on that definition were sufficient to find particular people guilty in a particular case. That would be WP:UNDUE in this article, even as a footnote because there would be no limit to the number of footnotes that could be added regarding cases in different regions. What counts in this article is how reliable sources such as UNICEF regard the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well if that's your position for "reliable sources" then the article cited is NOT a UNICEF article, it's a private Blog. Plus, the section is about the communities "NOT accounted for in the latest UNICEF report". So, there's no UNICEF report on the Dawoodi Bohras. It is also unclear how reliable UNICEF and WHO are on this particular issue, as they have become advocacy engines rather than presenters of facts.

I agree that the article shouldn't have multiple notes, however, till that there has only been only 1 case relating to this community, and that too has confirmed there's no "mutilation". The people practicing it do not identify with the term FGM. So at the very least there should be room to give information from both sides of the spectrum NPOV . Muffizainu (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, what one court in Australia rules has no bearing on the sentence in this article: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised ... by the Dawoodi Bohra in India."

The judge's view included that if the Australian government wanted its legislation to match the WHO definition, they should amend it. You've ignored that part of the ruling. This article does follow the WHO definition.

You're also ignoring anecdotal evidence from Dawoodi Bohra women who say they were cut. For example, Tasneem Raja: "As little girls, nearly all my female Bohra friends and I underwent khatna, the sect’s term for this practice. None of us remember being 'wiped.' We were cut. Some of us bled and ached for days, and some walked away with lifelong physical damage." [1] This from another Dawoodi Bohra woman, Mariya Karimjee:

When I was seven years old and living in Karachi, Pakistan, my mother took me to the pediatrician. While I sat on a stool, polishing imaginary dirt off the buckles on my Mary Janes, my mother quietly asked if it was time for me to get the bug removed. According to my mother, a bug was growing in an egg down there-- her language, not mine-- and that it would hatch and eventually crawl to my brain unless we removed it, she said. My pediatrician agreed. It was time to see the woman who removes the bug. ... [Afterwards], [f]or two days, I wore what I can only describe as a big-girl diaper, wet with blood. Peeing was so painful that I tried to last for hours without going, until my mother explained that I could give myself an infection. ...

[Years later], I visited a doctor who specialized in victims of FGM. ... This doctor, unlike so many of the gynecologists I'd seen before, didn't wince when she peered between my legs. She didn't over-apologize or pat my knees. She didn't murmur in a hushed whisper, like the medical resident at Columbia, "oh, bless your dear heart." Instead, she silently examined me. She'd heard of the religious sect that I belong to and had examined other girls like me.

She explained that because the cutting is done in the living room without proper medical equipment, for girls in my sect, the results varied. Some of the girls can easily go on to have great sex lives. But for me, the main difference was in the extensive scar tissue and the nerve damage. ... She told me what I'd long suspected. I'd probably never have a wonderful, easy, uncomplicated sex life. Instead, sex for me would likely involve many careful conversations with my partner, a sex therapist, and a willingness to trust a human beyond what I could imagine." [2]

Clearly, where traditional cutters perform these procedures, you're going to end up with a variety of outcomes. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the responses. I think we're missing the point

1. We're debating an article on "Wikipedia". This is not a WHO article, and thus, according to Wikipedia's NPOV stance, both sides of the arguments must mentioned.

2. SarahSV is focusing on the bearing of one sentence and that isn't my contention. I am not challenging the sentence. Using that same logic, my question is, since we now have only ONE case about this community, and that ONE case has negated the term "mutilation", and since this article talks about "mutilation", shouldn't this article - at the very least - be allowed to add a simple note for the readers reference? Why is it that SarahSV can cite 2 random articles, and a legitimate court ruling in Australia cannot be added as a note, let alone a part of the actual text? There are some serious neutrality issues here that are pushing a one sided POV.

3. SarahSV. I have not "ignored" the part of the ruling highlighted by you. However, that legislation has yet to be past. When it is, please feel free to add it. At the same time, what HAS been already passed, should also be allowed, at least as a note.

4. SarahSV. I don't know why you've cited random anecdotal articles about alleged claims of FGM by some, no one is ignoring anything. Like I've explained in Point 2, that isn't the contention, and that's a debate for another day. If your reasoning is to cite anecdotal evidences, then what is your justification for ignoring the voices of 70,000 women who say it's not FGM? [3] [4] [5]

In order to be neutral, if you're citing based on the arguments of one side, you should, at the very least, cite the other side of the spectrum.

5. As User:Johnuniq pointed out, since "reliable sources" haven't cited FGM with the Bohra community, then there should be a discussion whether that sentence should be mentioned at all. But that's a debate for another day.

Concluding. This Wikipedia article must have a NPOV. It revolves around the word "mutilation", and that word should be defined, and relevant material should be cited and noted in this article. And that is why this case judgement, which is the first of it's kind, must be cited.Muffizainu (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: "It revolves around the word 'mutilation', and that word should be defined". We follow the definition of the United Nations (UNICEF, WHO, etc), per community consensus. What seems to have happened in this case is that it relied on legislation that did not follow that definition, which is why the judge made reference to updating the law.

Re: "both sides of the arguments must mentioned". Please read WP:UNDUE. This is the FGM parent article, and it covers FGM all over the world. Legal cases occur regularly and legislation is updated. We can't add a sentence or footnote about every single case; we've alluded to a few that had significant legal implications, but otherwise not. The Australian case belongs in the Dawoodi Bohra article (I've added it) or in Female genital mutilation in Australia (but don't create it to cover this one case or to make this case overwhelm it). SarahSV ^(talk) 03:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the Australian case. The defendants were charged with performing khatna. The defence said: "Our clients did not perform khatna. They performed only 'symbolic khatna'". This was not accepted at trial, either because not true, or because, if true, it was still FGM. It was accepted by the appeal court, which told the government: "If you want your legislation to cover "symbolic khatna" too, you'll have to amend it.

Which part of this, if any, have I misunderstood (succinctly, please)? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in writing as I was away for a month. There is no such thing as "symbolic khatna". Khatna is by definition symbolic. I think you are raeding too much into the word "symbolic". It was irrelevant during the trial and during the appeal. And that is not the reason for the acquittal either. I don’t think that this statement is factually true.

What you've said about the legistlation ammendment seems to be true. But it hasn't been ammended yet to include the "symbolic khatna" (as you like to refer to it as), under the scope of FGM. So until that's done, why jump to conclusions?

If you feel this doesn't need to be noted on the FGM page, then on the same grounds, as per Johnuniq comments above, i'd like to ask that since this article wants t focus only on the WHO / UNICEF position, since they labelled the term FGM, and since the article must refer to reliable sources, why should anecdoctal articles be used? There is not one single WHO or UNICEF document that talks about the Dawoodi Bohra practice, and thus I propose a deletion of the words "and by the Dawoodi Bohra in India", and any other non-reliable source material in the page.

If however, you disagree, then then at least provide a claricication note, that although it MIGHT be considered FGM, a reliable source such as the NSW case categorically stated that it wasn't "mutilation". And that is what I had proposed right from the beginning.Muffizainu (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Why repeat that line about the NSW court case when six weeks ago I wrote "the conclusion would be that a single court in a single case in a single country reached a decision regarding whether the legal definition of "mutilation" applicable in that jurisdiction and the judge's statement on that definition were sufficient to find particular people guilty in a particular case"? That is not in any way informative about worldwide views of reliable sources regarding general cases. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case, then why mention that statement ""and by the Dawoodi Bohra in India" in the article, when it isn't based on reliable sources? Have the WHO or UNICEF said so? No. Muffizainu (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the principle of other stuff exists. In other words, the possibility that some other statement may be wrong and/or badly sourced has absolutely nothing to do with the statement and source being discussed. The text "and by the Dawoodi Bohra in India" is verified by reference 84. Is there disagreement about the three sources shown? Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in that link, yes. But is it reliable according to your standards? The is a clearly an opinion Blog, and isn't a INICED article. Using your same argument that other stuff exists, why isn't the Australia case being allowed to be mentioned? Doesn't that exist? The Wikipedia article uses a Blog to claim FGM, whereas a court case that ran for 10 years finally confirms it wasn't mutilation. Why cannot that be noted? Why isn't the statement of the 72,000 Dawoodi Bohra Women of DBWRF saying that they do not practice FGM being taken? Doesn't that exist as well?

https://www.livelaw.in/female-genital-mutilation-dr-singhvi-objects-the-illusory-classification-between-male-and-female-circumcision/ http://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/khatna-not-construed-female-genital-mutilation-technically-no-mutilation-sc-told-53660

https://dbwrf.org/ Muffizainu (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The mention in this article of the Dawoodi Bohra is about India, not Australia. The sentence says: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised ... by the Dawoodi Bohra in India." Are you arguing that there are no smaller studies or anecdotal reports to that effect? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

Please remove "ritual" from the definition. the articles state that FGM is the "ritual cutting" This is not strictly correct. Any surgery can be described as ritualistic as they follw a cetain procedure. the use of the word ritual may be miscontrued to mean fetishness unless that is what you are ferring in which case you are wrong.

It is practised as part of Islam as well. Please remove "ritual" from the definition Jayeju (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jayju, this has been discussed before. The ritual nature of it (as a religious/cultural ritual) differentiates it from other reasons to perform some of these procedures, e.g. medical and cosmetic. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Information about restoration of vulva missing?

Somewhere in this article we should mention that there are doctors and hospital that are able to "restore" some of the women's genitalia. I once read about this, there seems to be a hospital in Berlin that does it, restoring more sexual pleasure for women that have been cut. I don't have the information at my fingertips but was expecting that it should be mentioned in this article (or is there a sub-article about it which I have missed? If so, it still should be linked). EMsmile (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am just trying to bring this back to everyone's attention. Has nobody commented because you don't know about this aspect or because you think this aspect does not need to be mentioned in this article, or because nobody has a reliable reference at hand (I don't have one handy otherwise I would have added it myself)? EMsmile (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I definitely think information about this should be included, as it is very relevant to the topic. I do not know anything about this so I don't feel I am qualified – at least not at the moment – to add information on it myself. Thank you for bringing this up!!! Iamextremelygayokay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to have information on restoration somewhere in the article if medically reliable sources clearly stated that restoration is effective and is used in a sufficiently large number of cases such that WP:DUE would be satisfied. In the absence of sources it seems likely that restorative surgery would only be used in a minute number of cases in which case the information would not belong in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

EMsmile, I haven't tried to write anything about this, because it's a topic in its own right and there are several procedures depending on the damage. Any paragraph or section about it would have to reflect the high-quality secondary medical literature, and be careful not to talk up any particular procedure. Writing a balanced summary would involve a fair amount of work, and it would have to be kept up to date. I'd have no objection if you wanted to add a paragraph about it to this article (bearing in mind Johnuniq's point about WP:DUE and the number of cases handled). Better still would be if someone were to create a separate article, then allude to it summary-style in this one (although, again, bear in mind the need to keep things up to date).

Medical sources should be MEDRS-compliant secondary sources, which can be found via Pubmed by, for example, searching for "FGM reconstruction". That search returns a few free articles. Anything behind a paywall can be requested at WP:RX. PMID 28755440 looks interesting as a start (the lead author Rigmor C. Berg, has written a few articles about FGM). It concludes: "Women with FGM/C who seek therapeutic surgery should be informed about the scarcity of evidence for benefits and the potential harms of the available procedures." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback User:Iamextremelygayokay, Johnuniq, SarahSV. I agree that ultimately a separate article would be great but in the meantime, could we at least insert one sentence with the key terminoloty so that people even know that this kind of treatment exists and that they know how to search for more information? I think it is very important. I didn't even know that the search term to use is "FGM reconstruction" (or "vulva reconstruction"?)? We could cite the paper that you mentioned with that statement: "Women with FGM/C who seek therapeutic surgery should be informed about the scarcity of evidence for benefits and the potential harms of the available procedures." - or something similar. I really do think it's a piece of information missing from the article thus far. Thanks. Once we've made a start, there is a higher likelihood that more will follow, such as a separate article. EMsmile (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

We can't cite a paper without having read it, and we can't add a stand-alone sentence. Also, it would be better to use a mix of sources, or at least more than one. Perhaps you could draft something and suggest it here? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course in an ideal world we'd be citing several papers. But I think in terms of "work in progress", citing one reliable paper with one or several key statements is better than saying nothing about a certain issue at all. I can try to draft something up but as it's not my area of expertise it would take me much longer than for someone who knows the topic well. I have this "insane" hope that of those people who have this important article on their watchlist, there could be at least one or two person who happen to be a topic expert and who can easily write something up without having to think about it much (it would be the same for me if it was one of "my" topics, i.e. anything on sanitation...). But I'll put it on my longer term to do list anyhow (but if someone beats me to it, I'd be more than happy!). - The hints that you have provided so far are already an excellent start, thank you SarahSV. EMsmile (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

reworking "Opposition in Sierra Leone" ?

The following section was just cut in its entirety. I hope that by dumping it here, something can be salvaged from it. The sources themselves, The Lancet and Voice of America, seem useful.

Female Genital Mutilation has been a big problem in Sierra Leone, the country that reports the highest occurrence of this practice in the world . Statistics taken by the Demographic and Health Survey revealed that in 2008, 91.3% of women aged 15-49 had been circumcised and in 2013 that number had only dropped to 89.6% . However, in 2014 a massive Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone led to the deaths of 4000 people and the government decided to help prevent the spread of the disease by putting a ban on the practice of FGM. The ban was somewhat ineffective however and only 3 years after it was put in play, the practice is still occurring in the country. The topic is difficult to address however because it is embedded into the country's he cultural history and many politicians who could try to do something about the issue have not taken necessary steps because they are more concerned about re-election. It is also seen as a rite of passage by some of the people in the country but women who have been affected by it are trying to raise awareness of how bad the practice is and why it should be stopped.

The members of the Sierra Leone Eastern Kenema District FGM Council protested against the interference in their secret society. It was stated that the protest began when a 28 - year old woman was coerced into FGM and kept locked in a house for four days. The FGM victim was admitted to the hospital with serious pain and traumatization. The violence against women and girls are investigated by the police Family Support Unit and was examining the charges of kidnapping, forced FGM and torture. The news of the assault has made Sierra Leone anti FGM coalition to reiterate their call for banning FGM in the country. The practice is always harmful and unacceptable in this 21st century regardless of the age of the victims.

Sierra Leone’s First post war election happened in March 2018 to ensure a fair election for the candidates. During the 2018 March the FGM ban was enforced again to prevent the candidates from gaining sway during the elections. The Candidates would pay for the FGM ceremonies taking care of the fee like the feast they have the music and the women performing the ceremony paying up to $200 dollars for all fees. This paying of the ceremonies would gain the favor of the pro FGM supporters

--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, please see Female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone. That's the best place for it, assuming there are RS and it's not already there. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

This is a primary source [6]. This is an NGO.[7]

We need better sources per WP:MEDRS than these User:Balolay Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

Change the title of the page: Female genital mutilation to Female genital mutilation (Female genital cutting) because the term Female genital mutilation is a highly politicized term and is not always accurate from case to case. Additionally, when internet users search for this wikipedia page, more individuals would be able to find it if both terms were listed in the title of the page.

Change "There is no mention of it in the Quran.[132] It is praised in a few daʻīf (weak) hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required,[133][u] although it is regarded as obligatory by the Shafi'i version of Sunni Islam.[134]" to "It is praised in a few daʻīf (weak) hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required[133][u]. For example, one weak hadith, translated by Ahmad Hasan, uses the phrase "La tunhiki" which Hasan translates as "do not cut severely" or "do not ruin." Jmatthews24 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The title of the article has been discussed extensively in the past and there is a strong consensus that the current title is best because it it based on reliable sources. The second proposed edit needs some consideration but that will take a bit of time. First, is there a problem with the current text? Why? What is the reason for making the change? Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Womanpower logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Religion

A recent edit changed some text with comparisons of prevalence among various religious groups at Female genital mutilation#Religion. I investigated the issue and I'm pretty sure the original reference ([8]) and page numbers were correct. The front cover (page 3 of the pdf) verifies "in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts", and the bar chart on page 73 (page 81 of the pdf) verifies the other text. However, there are actually 19 African countries that are shown with "10 percent of Christian ..." where "Christian" refers to page 73's "Other Christians" and "Roman Catholic". The 19 countries, in alphabetical order, are:

Benin
Burkina Faso
Central African Republic
Chad
Cote d'Ivoire
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Kenya
Liberia
Mali
Niger
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Tanzania

By the way, the edit also changed the spelling style from "practise" to "practice". Per WP:ENGVAR it is not a good idea to change an existing style—see "This article is written in Canadian English" in the notices at the top of this talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thanks, I'll change that to 19 and restore the spelling. Thanks for writing up the list of countries. I might add them to a footnote. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Female circumcision

I'm not planning to make any edits, but the term female circumcision should not even be used in this article, not just because it is rejected by experts in the matter, but also because it's simply inaccurate (circumcision literally means "to cut around") Pariah24 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but the article has to report things like "also known as" and it has to stick to the language in sources. The first footnote sets out the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Hi Dafteire, can you say here what your objection is to this? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the objection is the word ALL, unless I am reading it out of context, the sentence is saying ALL women (only women) initiate FGM??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafteire (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources used for the statement are [9] and [10]. The latter one says "In fact, elderly women often do the most to perpetuate the custom". Let me skim the other one. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Moreover, the fact that the decision to perform FGC is often firmly in the control of women weakens the claim of gender discrimination." From the first source. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Dafteire, I think you may have misread the sentence. It refers to all forms of FGM, not all women: "Despite the evident suffering, it is women who organize all forms of FGM." Then it gives an example: "Anthropologist Rose Oldfield Hayes wrote in 1975 that educated Sudanese men who did not want their daughters to be infibulated (preferring clitoridectomy) would find the girls had been sewn up after the grandmothers arranged a visit to relatives." SarahSV ^(talk) 00:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the "organizes all forms" part is not reflected by the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Which part of that section does not support that it refers to all forms of FGM? The sentence after it is about infibulation. Also "In a study in northern Sudan, published in 1983, only 17.4 percent of women opposed FGM (558 out of 3,210), and most preferred excision and infibulation over clitoridectomy." That is changing but very slowly. It is women who organize it, and they organize all forms of it, including infibulation. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Other way around. We need sources that explicitly support the "organized all forms" portion. We have sources that say "firmly in the control of women", "elderly women often do the most", and in the same section, a source that says that FGC is "supported and transmitted by women". None of these equate to "organize all forms". EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

History section re-organization

Perhaps the history section should be put earlier in the article. Learning the history of female genital mutation first allows for a better understanding of the topic's later content (before reasons etc.) More research on the history of FGM should be done. Is there more information on when this horrible procedure really began? Estherjacob (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Estherjacob, thank you for your comment. Articles do normally start with history, but we didn't in this article for three reasons. First, medical articles are one of the few groups that do not start with history; they usually have it at the end. This isn't only a medical article, but it pays some heed to that style. Second, the history section is long, so the article would have been top-heavy. Third, the history flows well into the opposition and the history thereof. Therefore, we decided on a compromise position and placed the history in the middle: after the key points about types, reasons and prevalence, and before opposition and criticism of opposition.

As for more information about origins, there isn't much. Gerry Mackie has written about it; his articles are cited in ours. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

{subst:proposed deletion|concern=}

{subst:proposed deletion|concern=just doesn't make sense. "Reasons" doesn't give reasons till 4th paragraph, and their not even real reasons. proof? 200 million females in Africa? proof? again... 1st sentence, I clicked on that #3 (reference UNICEF & the click didn't work, it just moved me lower to the same wiki page instead of moving me to UNICEF.) after 200 million. I don't want it deleted, ... I want more info, b/c I just don't believe this. Sorry, I am not racist, but... Doctors in Africa do this? Are they dumber then other people. Do they know what the English word vegan means verse vegetarian? I bet they don't.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by FR-TaxCollector (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is barely comprehensible. That figure is sourced to UNICEF. Reasons does, in fact, give reasons. You need to put more time and effort (and proofreading) into your critique, if you wish for anything constructive to happen as a result. You have refactored your comment with various rhetorical questions since I've written this, but I think this suffices. Anyway, good luck. El_C 03:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop refactoring your comment after it had already been replied to. Write a response or a followup, instead. El_C 03:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You're still doing it. Please stop. El_C 03:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to continue doing this, I'm just going to leave you to your own devices. El_C 03:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

New legislation section

Hi M900417 and Nederlandse Leeuw, thanks for adding information about this.

It has been about three years, perhaps longer, since I looked at the legal situation. At that time it was significantly more complex than the table suggests. There are countries in which there is no dedicated FGM legislation but where it is nevertheless a criminal offence. In countries in which it is practised, it was illegal in some states but not others, or it was restricted in certain ways but not banned outright. See footnote ag, which was the situation as of 2013 in countries in which FGM is common.

The content apart, the table is perhaps too large for the article. It also isn't clear why certain countries are included. A dedicated article would be a good idea. Suggestions: Female genital mutilation and the law; Legislation against female genital mutilation; or List of countries in which female genital mutilation is illegal. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the table for the reasons explained above. The sourcing is unclear, and it contradicts material in other parts of the article. For example (this is just an example), FGM was banned in Somalia as of 2012, according to UNICEF, p. 12. Your table says otherwise, sourced to 28toomany.org, p. 22, which says it's against the constitution in Somalia but that there's no law against it. That inconsistency would have to be unpacked. And does it matter that there's no actual law? It's the same in many countries, where it's addressed by other laws.

You also have to know, when a practice is outlawed, what exactly has been banned. Perhaps one aspect of it has been banned but not others. Also, what matters is not the law, but the enforcement of the law and, most importantly, the acceptance of the law within the relevant communities. If they don't accept it, it will continue but will be even riskier because conducted in secret. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the legislation section from this already complex article. A key point is that a table with binary legal/illegal does not sufficiently cater for the very different practicalities that apply in various jurisdictions. For example, exactly what procedures are covered by legislation, and is the law purely decoration or has it actually been enforced. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV and Johnuniq, let's see what we can accomplish together. :)

First of all, the reason I wanted to create this list is because it was thoroughly unclear to me in which countries FGM is banned and which it is still legal, my direct motivation being the recent Sudanese criminalisation.

Second, the reason I chose to include it in this article instead of a new article or in the FGM prevalence article was simply because the circumcision and law article's heading said 'For the legal status of female genital mutilation, see female genital mutilation', and yet there was no real, clear, centralised summary of the legal status of FGM to be found in the article; the closest was to be found between the lines of 'Opposition' section, so that's where I began.

Third, the table I created was nothing like a definitive, comprehensive or exhaustive overview; e.g. I've previously made many efforts in the FGM prevalence article to raise awareness about FGM in Asian countries - as it's so often misnamed 'an African problem' and thus Asia gets barely any attention from media, activists and politics. I just started it as a work in progress that anyone can continue, including myself at a later stage, but I was content with leaving it like this for now (I had other topics to write about as well). Wikipedia is always a work in progress and where one editor leaves off, others can pick it up. I substantiated everything I wrote with pretty reliable sources, although some were perhaps incomplete, lacked nuance or were outdated. Anyone with more recent and more accurate information can always correct it though, including you and I myself.

Fourth, you're right that legal situations can be a lot more complex than just 'legal/illegal' and can also be summarised with more nuance than I did so far; the Marital rape laws by country article that I co-authored has a setup that fits that purpose quite well and I was thinking about working in that direction as the list would grow in length and complexity.

Fifth, I guess you have already decided it's too lengthy to be included in this article, and that it deserves its own. I initially considered 'Female genital mutilation and the law' to make it analogous to 'Circumcision and law', but the setup of the latter is much more textual as there isn't a very easy comparison to be made and the practice is essentially legal in all countries around the world. The latter two suggested titles would exclude some or all information about the status of FGM in countries where it is generally legal, whereas I would like a complete overview of all countries. Therefore, I have decided to name the new separate article Female genital mutilation laws by country, analogous to the aforementioned 'Marital rape laws by country'. I invite you to help me write it. :) Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw, thanks for creating the separate article. I'll keep an eye on it as it develops. The legal situation in this article does need to be updated, but the lack of a section and list of countries is a feature not a bug. It would have been difficult to write and keep up to date. News organizations will state "X bans FGM", but when you finally read the legislation, it turns out X hasn't banned it entirely. In addition, whether it's banned is not the point. It's whether it's happening that matters, and they are two quite separate issues. The bans can be detrimental by driving it underground, which means women don't tell the truth when asked in health surveys whether they've had their daughters cut. So the stats show the prevalence is falling, when in reality it's not. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree with your observations, this is exactly the same kind of problems that I ran into in the case of marital rape laws, marry-your-rapist laws and more of that sort: the media are often inprecise in their reporting of what has happened or may hail a human rights victory before it has actually been achieved, banning a practice is only a step in the entire process of eradicating or at least marginalising a phenomenon that is deemed to be incompatible with human rights standards, and a practice can thrive underground for a long time after having been officially banned, especially if the state doesn't make a coordinated effort to enforce a new law. However, since laws cannot be enforced until they have actually been enacted, the legal status of these practices is a key part in understanding and conducting the process. And as I find the FGM prevalence article to be lacking in a clear overview of the legal situation as it is dedicated to the factual situation, this separate article has merits of its own. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: One of my eventual goals is creating a world map with the legal situation of FGM in every country indicated by colours, just like File:Marital rape laws by country.svg, File:Marry-your-rapist laws.svg and many other human rights maps I've created. Even though there is an entire Commons category devoted to c:Category:FGM maps and graphs about the prevalence, there is not a single map indicating in which countries it's actually still legal and where it isn't anymore. An image may say more than a thousand words. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Intersex children, male circumcision

The line 'An American Academy of Pediatrics circumcision task force issued a policy statement in 2012 that the health benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks; they recommended that it be carried out, if it is performed, by "trained and competent practitioners ... using sterile techniques and effective pain management"' near the end of the article ought to be revised to include their view that "the benefits are not great enough to support universal newborn circumcision", so as to not mislead the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techelon (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done I have changed this to a more global view, in WP:SYNC with the main article; discussion of male circumcision isn't due more than a brief mention in this article in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Bolnick 2012

Hi Alex, you added recently:

The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from a belief that elective circumcision of male babies and children carries significant risks and offers no medical benefits, to a belief that the procedure has a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks."

but you didn't added a long citation for Bolnick. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's okay. I found it in Circumcision. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Whoops - thanks for the fix! Alexbrn (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you please completely delete the Type III External images section?

Would you please completely delete the Type III External images subsection under the Classification section of this Female genital mutilation Wikipedia article?

The photographs and captions provided at the external links in this subsection supposedly show the difference in appearance of a woman with this type of brutal mutilation who has not been sexually active versus one who has been sexually active.

Providing these images could lead a reader to think that this brutal, horrific, dangerous practice is a good practice, and could lead readers to support the practice as a source of psychological physical, and sexual control.

This type of support should be utterly removed from the article, especially because it exists in the medical section of the article (not in the controversial support or criticism sections), and because it stands to support the cruel reasons why someone might do this to a person.

Furthermore, there are no other photographs in or linked to this article. No photographs show the disgusting mess that is left behind after this horrific procedure is done, nor show the pain, terror, or complications, and horrible realities of these dangerous procedures. The only photographs for this article seem to support this practice in all its evils, and are inappropriate and terribly biased.

Please also permanently delete the linked pages on which these inappropriate images reside so that they are no longer on Wikipedia, as well.

Thank you. InCompassion (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Nobody with any sense reading this article could conclude that FGM is "a good practice". This is one of those (actually very rare) occasions where WP:NOTCENSORED genuinely applies. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The photographs and captions are still inappropriate and should be permanently removed. Would someone who can remove these please do so, out of respect for women and girls? Thank you, again. InCompassion (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Rooted in

Hi, the lede states that "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and beauty", but I can't find that treated in the article; iow., that sentence does not seem to do any job re summarizing the article. Surely there must be something in the sources? T 88.89.219.99 (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The entire article and its sources are pretty much the source for that sentence. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thx for your answer. Maybe I'm taking "summarizing" too literally ...? The ideas of purity etc. occur several places is the article, but if you read it looking for gender inequality or control of sexuality, you never get to the "ah, there it is"-point; iow, it might have been made more explicit. What made me ask the question was actually that the article describes mainly women as those who uphold the practice and value of it. To a literal mind (...) that would seem as if women attempt to control women's sexuality, etc. To me, that seems a bit muddled, somehow; or at least it makes the article open to such a "literal reading", and I suspect that wasn't the intention. But anyhow, that's just me; if things are considered ok as-is, then fine by me. Just thought I'd mention it. T 88.89.219.99 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Female Genital mutilation

How many countries still practice this exercise? How many different religions require this? 67.234.7.138 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

People's Personal Experience

Have you thought about looking at more research on how women feel about what happened to them? How they felt when it happened, after, and years after? Heather98psu (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not really suitable for an encyclopedic article. Something might be added if there were a very reliable source that drew certain conclusions from research into people's personal experiences, but simply listing some examples would be original research due to cherry picking. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Somalia on the map (FGM is banned)

The constitution of Somalia bans FGM.[11] It is possible to prosecute FGM under general provision of the law, so Somalia should be light green on the map (general criminal provision that might be used to prosecute FGM); here is a link about an (attempted) prosecution (problem with the prosecution was lack of cooperation from parents, not lack of legislative means). According to source: "Somalia does not have a law against FGM, but a senior CID officer interviewed in the film warned parents that it was still illegal. Legal experts say prosecutions could be brought under the Penal Code, which makes it an offence to cause hurt to another."[12] 2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Russia

Russia should also be light green on the map:

Source about Russia's first trial on FGM: "Zarema filed criminal charges, and the doctor who allegedly performed the operation is now on trial in a court in Magas. Proceedings against pediatric gynecologist Izanya Nalgiyeva began in December 2019 and have now restarted after being suspended because of coronavirus lockdown measures. Nalgiyeva is being tried for actual bodily harm, which means she could face a fine but not a prison sentence." [13] 2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Health Benefits

The claim that female genital mutilation has no health benefits does not appear to be supported by the medical literature. For example, some academic sources have noted in journals such as Medical Anthropology Quarterly and Journal of Medical Ethics benefits such as: "...lower risk of vaginal cancer and AIDS, less nervous anxiety, fewer infections “from microbes gathering under the head of the clitoris” [and] protection against herpes and genital ulcers’"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17937251/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348321843_Male_or_Female_Genital_Cutting_Why_'Health_Benefits'_Are_Morally_Irrelevant

It makes sense that if you cut off tissue, you will lower your risk of getting cancer in that area, and similarly, that you will be less likely to get infections.

Similarly, some studies have noted a reduction of risk in HIV:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265824402_Female_Circumcision_and_HIV_Infection_in_Tanzania_for_Better_or_for_Worse https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17642409/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/15/female-genital-mutilation-health-benefits-problem-medicalizing-morality/

This is not to minimize the harm of FGM as it is a severe bioethical violation and human rights abuse but it is inaccurate to claim that the practice has no health benefit, as any removal of body parts could be considered 'beneficial' in terms of health. As said earlier, tissue that has been excised can no longer host a cancer, become infected, or pose any other problem to its erstwhile owner. But as the bioethicist Eike-Henner Kluge has noted, if this logic were accepted more generally, “all sorts of medical conditions would be implicated” and we would find ourselves “operating non-stop on just about every part of the human body.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336952/

Dashoopa (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can you give a page number for this source where it discusses medical benefits of FGM? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's discussed in page 304, use a Scihub link to get direct access to the full paper. Dashoopa (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That isn't an appropriate source for medical information on Wikipedia (see WP:MEDRS). It says:

in Egypt Muslim doctors have stated that the health benefits of female FGA include reduced sexual desire, lower risk of vaginal cancer and AIDS, less nervous anxiety, fewer infections "from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris," and protection against herpes and genital ulcers (Gollaher 2000:193, 195, 199). Less committed observers point out that proven sequelae include clitoral cysts, labial adhesions, urinary tract infections, kidney dysfunction, sterility, and loss of sexual feeling, but defenders of FGA are claiming no more than what advocates of MGA have asserted for decades.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for responding! Could you say more specifically why it's no in line with WP:MEDRS? Other than that, I did give other sources that would back up the claim that it reduces the risk of HIV though and another source for the vaginal cancer, AIDS claim. And I also gave a secondary source for the HIV along with the primary source studies. Dashoopa (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dashoopa, if you read the second paragraph of WP:MEDRS, that will give you a better idea. We need secondary sources, not primary sources. I'm reluctant to add anything about whether this or that might affect HIV rates, unless it's very solid. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Of course there are no any health benefits whatsoever. But I stumbled to another section, Criticism of opposition. It is basically saying that the opposition to mutilation is "a Judeo-Christian judgment" and a "colonialism" according to ... anthropologists. Is it really a "majority view" by the anthropology community today? Last para refers to an outdated debate. This whole section seems to be WP:FRINGE. I doubt it needs to be on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, please don't remove large amounts of material and sources. (Your edit left an unused ref name.) So far as I know, this remains a major view within anthropology, e.g. [14] SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see. To me such position by anthropologists seems unscientific. But perhaps this should not be surprising given that barbaric mutilation (like lobotomy or "feminizing reconstructive surgery" of XY infants) was widely practiced in the US. But here is my actual question: is not "Comparison with other procedures" a separate section/sub-subject, not a part of the "Criticism of opposition"? My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that women who have this done may prefer their bodies that way, so it becomes difficult for people elsewhere to tell them they're wrong to have those preferences, especially when women in non-practicing countries choose to do similar things to their bodies. That is why "comparison with other procedures" is part of the criticism of the opposition to FGM, i.e. don't tell us not to do it when you're effectively doing it yourselves. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. But this is not at all clear from reading this section. For example, the subsection "Intersex children, male circumcision" say: Several commentators maintain that children's rights are violated not only by FGM but also by the genital alteration of intersex children, who are born with anomalies that physicians choose to correct.[256] Arguments have been made that non-therapeutic male circumcision, practised by Muslims, Jews and some Christian groups, also violates children's rights. and so on. Yes, certainly. But is it "criticism of FGM opposition"? No. I do not see any logical connection on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The connection (to most of it) is explained by the introductory sentence you removed: "Nnaemeka argues that the crucial question, broader than FGM, is why the female body is subjected to so much 'abuse and indignity', including in the West." That's the argument "don't criticize FGM practitioners when people elsewhere do similar things." It moves on to other forms of genital cutting, so the question is why people keep cutting their own and their children's genitals (whether because of ritual or intersex issues). That discussion falls within the "criticism of the opposition to FGM" category. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I did not get that argument: "don't criticize people for doing something really bad [from the scientific perspective] when people elsewhere do similar [bad] things." And this is an argument by anthropologists? Not only this is not science, but this is classic "let's steal because others steal". OK, thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It boils down to "don't be a hypocrite". But Martha Nussbaum counters that point by arguing "that a key concern with FGM is that it is mostly conducted on children using physical force. The distinction between social pressure and physical force is morally and legally salient, comparable to the distinction between seduction and rape." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, "social pressure" involves indoctrination to such degree that people harm themselves and others, even here in US - on a variety of issues, from guns to COVID. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In the 17th century

The following academic paper states:

Early in the 17th century Roman Catholic missionaries who settled in Egypt forbade female circumcision in the mistaken belief that it was a Jewish custom. However, when the female children of the Roman Catholic converts reached adulthood, theywere rejected by would-be husbands, who insisted on circumcised wives.

— doi:10.1093/milmed/164.1.11

It is freely available. The current WP article doesn't affirm yet that in 17th century the Roman Catholic missionaries temporary forbade female genital mutilation in Egypt. Hopefully, the related source may be capitalized. Best regards, Theologian81sp (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I'd prefer to use a source that cites its sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Medical care during pregnancy and childbirth

Someone reverted the sections I wrote about pregnancy and childbirth that have professional publications as sources, saying that this needs to be discussed. So please, what is there to discuss? These are the sections:

Women with FGM type III require special care during pregnancy and labour. Elective defibulation ideally around the 20th week of pregnancy reduces the likelihood of perineal rupture and avoids the need to perform the defibulation or an anterior episiotomy during labour. It must be performed under general anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia. Inadequate analgesia (insensitivity to pain) could cause traumatic flashbacks, i.e. an internal re-experiencing of the extreme pain state during and after the anaesthetic-less circumcision. Avoiding an increased reactivation of this trauma reduces the risk that a caesarean section will be necessary.

Source: Susan Bennett: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting - Medical Management. In: Child Abuse and Neglect 2010.

A 2009 study in a gynaecology teaching hospital in Switzerland was to determine the wishes of 122 pregnant patients with FGM in the context of antenatal care and delivery and their subsequent satisfaction. Most women were from Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia and were victims of infibulation. 110 pregnant women without FGM served as a control group. Another aim was to determine whether the two groups had different fetal and maternal outcomes. 6% of the infibulated patients wanted antenatal FGM defibulation, 43% wanted defibulation during labour, 34% wanted defibulation during labour only if it was considered medically necessary. 17 % of the women were not able to express their expectations. Of the 122 women, four wanted to be closed tightly again after delivery and another two wanted a less tight closure. All patients were informed that no re-infibulation would be performed as this is prohibited in Switzerland.

There were no differences from the women in the control group in terms of fetal outcome, maternal blood loss or duration of labour. However, the FGM patients had a emergency caesarean section and vaginal tears of the third degree significantly more often, but fewer first and second degree tears.

76% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the management. Those whose wishes for reclosure were not met and those who suffered complications were not satisfied. 12 % of the patients did not want to answer the question about their satisfaction. In conclusion, the publication says that an interdisciplinary approach supports both optimal antenatal and intrapartum management and prevention of FGM in daughters born this way.

In a study published in 2020 on deliveries to a total of 1086 Somali and Sudanese women in a hospital in Saudi Arabia, there were 455 caesarean deliveries (42%). Of the 631 women who delivered vaginally, 27% had type III FGM/C and delivered with defibulation, while 73% did not have type III FGM/C and delivered without defibulation. Demographic and clinical factors were similar between the two groups that delivered vaginally. Birth outcomes did not differ except for instrument use and maternal blood loss. There was no spontaneous rupture of the infibulation scar before the planned defibulation. In countries of other cultural origins, where female genital mutilation is not common, this procedure is little known, medical staff may not be prepared to care for women with infibulation, especially in emergency situations, which may result in rupture of the infibulation scar during such births.

Source: Wuest S., Raio L., Wyssmueller D. et al.L Effects of female genital mutilation on birthoutcomes in SwitzerlandIn: Intrapartum care, Mai 2009

Sciencia58 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question was diff. That more than tripled the amount of text in the "Pregnancy, childbirth" section adding the text shown above. The article is already very long and the proposed text is more of a how-to regarding management of pregnancy in affected women. It appears also to be based mainly on a paper regarding procedures in Switzerland. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit was based on two publications, not on one. Do you think the vulvas of women in other clinics are different?

Do you think you could keep the section on pregnancies and births short? Just giving a general list of possible problems and that's it? Something along the lines of "well" they have a few problems, but so what? Where should the topic of special needs in prenatal care for women with a sutured introitus vaginae be addressed? In the article on prenatal care? As if infibulation were something normal? How should it then be thematically separated from the cutting of the infibulation scar necessary at birth? In the article childbirth also write again about births in women with vulvas sewn together? These problems and measures are specific to the issue of genitally mutilated women, so they belong right here. Or do you think it should be taboo, so that when these women arrive as refugees in Europe, we can let their sewn-up vulvas burst during childbirth, as in the photo here? Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting - Medical Management This is what happens when the gynaecologists and the obstetricians in the clinics don't know about it and don't prepare, and when the women themselves don't know what's going to happen at birth and perhaps think they can have their babies at home with the help of a midwife. Many women from the Orient spend many months on the road fleeing war zones and give birth to their babies somewhere. Shouldn't Wikipedia be a source of information about the medical facts? And about the psychological consequences that many women are unable to talk about the problem and articulate their needs because of fear? Some remain silent and wait until the last moment when it may be too late. [15]. The English-language Wikipedia is not only for Americans but also for the UK and all other countries in Europe that harbour infibulated women as immigrants. How long is the article about human penis size and how important is it? Sciencia58 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Europe and Australia: [16] Sciencia58 (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

More publications: [17] [18] Sciencia58 (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Another publication: [19] Sciencia58 (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So far, the section ends with the fact that women with sutured vulvas often have a prolonged second stage of labour. But why? What is preventing the baby from coming out?

What you see here in the photo [20] is not the baby's head, but the closed vulva that is distended from the inside, through which the head cannot come out because the vulva has been sewn shut. At the bottom you see the bulging anus and at the top the opening that was left open for urination getting stretched. The head is actually already born, but the baby doesn't slide out any further, as it would in a normal birth now. The woman must now continue to push until her tissues tear open in extreme pain. This is also the cause of the great blood loss. This is how brutal births are when women don't get a defibulation in the hospital. We cannot make that taboo here in a scientific encyclopaedia. "The vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth" (see introduction) is not enough. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sciencia58 I agree with Johnuniq that the wording in the section needs to be more concise. Could you please make a shorten version with less detail about the research. For this general article on the topic, all that is needed is a high level summary. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 20:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Sciencia58, thank you for writing about a very important topic that relates to maternal and child health. I want to see it covered on Wikipedia. I see that the Wikipedia entity of defibulation (forgive my ignorance but it seems like this is a procedure to reduce potential obstetric harms of infibulation) actually just redirects to the infibulation page. If my understanding is correct, wouldn't the kind of content you added to this page serve as an excellent basis for the establishment of an actual defibulation medical page where this very important topic could be expanded upon? For what it's worth, I learned today that the main author of this page User:SlimVirgin, has died. She was the original person who reverted your edit[21] back on April 18th, the last day she ever edited Wikipedia, and she did a lot of work on this page. Because this article is currently rated as a WP:Featured article, people here would like for it to stay of featured quality. Would you please read the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and critically evaluate the prose you added to see if you think your paragraphs meet all of those criteria?

Do you think it is appropriate for defibulation to redirect to infibulation? Are they conceptually different? Sciencia58, thank you again for caring about an important topic. No one is suggesting this doesn't deserve attention in Wikipedia. But when I read the prose you added, I have to say that it doesn't feel like you're writing encyclopedic prose about FGM. It feels like you're writing prose for a review article about a subtopic of FGM, namely the medical management of female genital mutilation. But we're not here to write review articles on subtopics in parent articles (that would be a gross violation of WP:Summary style). Wikipedia articles are not to be based on WP:primary sources, but rather on secondary sources. Don't you feel like a separate Wikipedia article is deserved on this very important topic? If so, would it be best titled defibulation in type III female genital mutilation? Or obstetric management in those with female genital mutilation? Or should this topic be simply covered in an actual defibulation article? What are your thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed this text for now as it is under discussion and several people have voiced concerns about this prose. Will you please engage here? Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I think removal from this article is best. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In the spotlight

(RIP Sarah)
cc: Johnuniq

The page today, in a section, goes FGM is practised [...] in India[1] by the Dawoodi Bohra[2]. I feel this juxtaposition is WP:UNDUE, not only because the cited UNICEF "booklet" isn't comprehensive but also 6 years old at this point and cites an opinion piece in Manushi by Ghadially, R. with a survey size of about 50 bohra women from one city (bohras live in 400 different cities in India alone, and in estimated 39 other different countries world-wide).

This name-calling and putting the Bohras on the pedestal:

1. Makes it seem like there's no other group in India but the Dawoodi Bohras that practice FGM. Not the case.

2. Ignores claims made by the Bohra clergy that what they practice isn't FGM (doi:10.1007/s11930-019-00213-y p. 221)

3. Ignores the fact that whatever Bohras practice has been clarified by the clergy as *not* compulsory. No authoritative studies exist on the extent of FGM in the community, but only anecdotal interviews and surveys by WeSpeakOut, Sahiyo, and a few others. (doi:10.1007/s11930-019-00213-y p. 225)

4. And that the Indian government has no official metrics on the practice of FGM in the country.

5. And that Ghadially, R., WeSpeakOut, Sahiyo are not only WP:BIASED but likely WP:FRINGE too.

Thoughts?

coi: i'm a dawoodi bohra Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is based on the best available reliable sources. If you have an alternative reliable source that supports some alternative text, please describe it including a brief extract of what the source says and what a proposed change to the article would be. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: RS: IMO, the UNICEF 2016 brochure isn't the "best" source available, per WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDANIMAL. It certainly isn't the latest WP:MEDDATE. And the UNICEF brochure, for FGM/C in India, footnotes an opinion piece which wasn't published by a med journal but a magazine. So, it isn't even WP:MEDRS?

FGM isn't obligatory per Bohra religious texts:

"[Zakir] references the Da'im al-Islam and describes Khafd as "Depending on the size of the prepuce, the procedure ranges from a nick, a dorsal cut, or an excision of no more than 2 mm. Additionally, great care is taken to not touch the clitoris, let alone harm the genitals...Dawoodi Bohra tradition calls for the removal of prepuce that is no larger than the size of a lentil grain." (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-019-00213-y p. 221)

Anectodal FGM reports or smaller studies are not reliable because:

"In Srinivasan’s 1991 newspaper article, one doctor re-ports that it would be impossible to identify if a girl has been cut unless there is gross mutilation. Another Bohra doctor reported she performed the practice, although she was against it. She reports the skin removed is very small and the cut is often symbolic so the healing is fast, and the scar would not be visible." (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-019-00214-x p. 233)

Advocacy groups, may out of bias, exaggerate claims:

"The Sahiyo study and the We Speak Out study are biased inthat they are designed and conducted by advocacy groupswith a very clear agenda to end the practice. This will un-doubtedly bias the studies." (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-019-00213-y p. 225)

In light of above, I think mentioning Dawoodi Bohra is WP:UNDUE, when a wikilink would suffice:

From: Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Malaysia; in the United Arab Emirates; and in India by the Dawoodi Bohra

To: Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Malaysia; in the United Arab Emirates (UNICEF 2016); and in India Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, an organization is a reliable source for a mundane fact such as the location of their headquarters. However, if a religious organization's declaration about what they do conflicts with reliable sources, the self-declaration has almost no weight as far as use as a source is concerned at Wikipedia. What source says FGM is performed in India other than within this group? Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You're changing goal posts? I want to highlight the current mention of Dawoodi Bohra in this article is WP:UNDUE. First, the current UNICEF source isn't the "best" one can find. It is a brochure (not a paper published in a med journal) and second, it cites footnote which is a biased, fringe, opinion piece. The sources I pointed out are not WP:ABOUTSELF, but a three-part paper published in Springer Nature (https://link.springer.com/journal/11930, a med journal), and the author has declared no conflict of interest.

What source says FGM is performed in India

The wikipage (Female genital mutilation in India), which cites those sources, goes, "FGM is practised in India by some Islamic groups". And "Other Bohra sects including the Sulemani Bohras and the Alavi Bohras, as well as some Sunni communities in Kerala, are reported as practising FGM." Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

UNICEF is a pretty good source, but for something more recent something like

• Bootwala YA (2019). "A Review of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) in the Dawoodi Bohra Community". Curr Sex Health Rep (Review). 11: 212–219. doi:10.1007/s11930-019-00212-z.

could be useful. There seems to be recent news interest too suggesting the practice in this community does merit special focus. Alexbrn (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

it isn't about UNICEF but what it cites is a fringe, biased, opinionated magazine piece, that probably violates the WP:MEDRS guideline, making it a garbage source. While Bootwala's study is probably what the article should cite, the current wording is not neutral at all, given the juxtaposition, the nature of the source, and the fact that Dawoodis are not the only group to practice FGM/C in India, and the fact that there are no authoritative studies on the extent of FGM/C practices in India. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: / @Alexbrn: Given the above, how do you suggest we proceed? My stance remains, if Dawoodi Bohra is mentioned, then the article must also mention (per Bootwala refs above):

1. No authoritative, no Indian Government recognized official studies; only small-scale, allegedly biased, studies and news reports based on those studies, predominantly by advocacy groups.

2a. The faith recommends up to (a maximum of) 2mm nick of the clitoral hood (not its removal), which is Type IV FGM, per WHO.

2b. The faith states it isn't obligatory, and that official stance of the Dawoodi Bohra clergy is to not practice any form of nicking in jurisdictions where it has been criminalized.

3. It isn't just the Dawoodis, but other Islamic groups in India may practice it, too.

4. Refrain from citing only the non-MEDRS sources exclusively (even in notes) to support claims made by advocacy groups, especially since Bootwala's study mentions it is impossible to verify FGM/C among the Bohras even upon physical examination, and doubts the claims of psychological, health, and sexual impact of the nick, and alleges bias.

and, change the text:

From: Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Malaysia; in the United Arab Emirates; and in India by the Dawoodi Bohra.

To: Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Malaysia; in the United Arab Emirates (UNICEF 2016); and in India.non-medrs ref1, non-medrs ref2 Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a need for change unless you're proposing to upgrade our article by using the Bootwala study, which you said we "should cite". Your proposal as is just looks like whitewashing the Dawoodi Bohra/FGM reality out of Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"I'm not seeing a need for change"? I've laid out why WP:UNDUE weight is given here to non-med sources (via Bootwala's study), and that a misleading statement "practised in India by the Dawoodi Bohra" is reaching for incorrect conclusions. This is aggravated by the fact that none of the supporting sources are WP:MEDRS. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't need WP:MEDRS to document the existence of a cultural practice. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Top of this talk page calls for WP:MEDRS. Besides, the point of this talk topic is, either mention all (cultural) groups that practice FGM in India (and in Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates), or mention none at all, because it is wp:undue (imho). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

This line is incorrect as they were falsely accused The judge made his ruling during a case against members of the Dawoodi Bohra community in Michigan accused of carrying out FGM.[216] Broick1 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —oscitare ^(talk | _contribs) 07:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted the article to this version from October. Because this is a featured article, and because the primary editor can't tend it, it's best to gain consensus for changes in my view. Posting here for discussion, particularly this edit re religion. I was involved with the peer review and FAC and know that the article was carefully crafted. We probably don't need to move that material into this article. Thoughts from other page watchers? Victoria (tk) 21:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the sentence added in that edit was a good summary of the intersection between FGM and religion: "Although some practitioners of FGM claim that it is a religious practice, this is rejected by mainstream theologians, and it is not considered to be a part of any of the world's major religious groups." I'd like to see it restored.VR _talk 21:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My thought is that Religious views on female genital mutilation is a daughter article of this one and the religion section is written in summary style, which the lead in turn summarizes, so we shouldn't be copying verbatim from the daughter article to the lead here, but rather stick rigorously to summary style in the lead. In my view the level of detail in the lead should have consensus. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing the changes here. What parts of the modified lead did you find objectionable? I think 1.) Although commonly used before the 1980s, calling FGM "female circumcision" has been universally rejected by medical practitioners 2.) Although some believed by some Christians, Jews, and Muslims who practice FGM to be religious in nature, a strong majority of mainstream theologians reject it. 3.) Saying that FGM applies to non-consensual and non-medically necessary genital cutting. (e.g. Consensual labiaplasty, piercings, et al. are all not typically considered forms of FGM) are important enough to include in the lead paragraphs and are not verbose/reductant to include. If anyone objects, I'd be open to discussing. But I think all of these changes are improvements to the old version, are well-sourced and referenced through citations, and increase the clarity of the article. KlayCax (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi KlayCax, thanks for the response. Just so you know, I'm currently busy IRL to give this the attention it deserves but will get to it as soon as I can in the next day or so. In the meantime pinging Johnuniq who's been active on the page for many years and might be more up-to-date with discussions on the talk page than I am. Also I'd like to spend a bit of time going through the threads on the talk pages that I might have missed. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 22:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

When I saw the edits being performed I thought it was inevitable that the article would be pushed towards advocacy against FGM. During its development, Sarah (User:Slimvirgin) avoided that by letting the facts tell the story (WP:NPOV). The recent edits changed the 07:36, 7 October 2021 revision to that of 19:33, 2 December 2021:

• Removed female circumcision from also known as and add it as a "misnomer" in the lead. The point is covered in the Terminology section.
• Added "Considered an egregious violation..." to lead (not in the body).
• After "It can include" in the lead, added "ritual nicking of the clitoral hood (type 4)". Is it necessary to include everything? Is it in the existing reference?
• Changed "is the ritual cutting or removal" to "is the practice of cutting or removing". The word ritual was chosen because it neatly describes what FGM is—a practice handed down as a custom from generation to generation with various rationalizations.
• Wording tweaks such as changing "in which FGM is common" to "in which the practice of FGM is common" and changing "(type 1-a) ... (1-b)" to "(type 1-a) ... (type 1-b)" and inserting "around" in "estimated ... around 200 million". These counter the existing style.

Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

add ext links please

• https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/female-genital-mutilation/
• https://www.who.int/health-topics/female-genital-mutilation
• https://www.unfpa.org/female-genital-mutilation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:9c36:5100::8c3 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

They are reasonable links but adding them needs discussion. Once links start being added, they attract more. There is quite a lot of repetition in the links and I'm not sure they satisfy WP:EL. Maybe add one of them? Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KPeprah112.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Medical Care during pregnancy and childbirth

Dear Biosthmors, excuse me for answering so late. I didn't receive the alert about your answer with your proposal to write an article about defibulation in time. Yes this would be the right thing to do. In it, the surgical procedures should be presented first, followed by a section on the empirical values of their use and the comparative studies with women who did not receive this protection against severe birth complications. I am not a surgeon and don't know yet if I could do it on my own. Sciencia58 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I found some literature in google scholar, but the article about the surgical techniques has no open access. Sciencia58 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

First anatomical cartoon is unrecognizable.

An anatomical depiction is only useful if it bears some resemblance to what it claims to depict. I never would have guessed what it was, and since it proports to be a useful guide to entirely external parts, it has no value. It even shows a supposed vagina, which is entirely internal and is "potential space" only, not an open storm drain. What's needed is a drawing or photograph of a child's genitals as they actually appear, since the article claims most victims to be very young.Lisa inCA (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation

PMID 32457498 describes a POV concern I have long held about this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The underlying issue is discussed at Female genital mutilation#Criticism of opposition. This is not the right place to comment on whether the WHO should address Western procedures such as Genitoplasty or Labiaplasty—any concern about that should be expressed at World Health Organization. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point!2601:644:8D7F:66F0:A5F8:E951:A844:ED7D (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

HIV

There have been some edits today advancing the claim that FGM has health benefits because it is associated with lower risk of HIV transmission. The source being used is a bioethics piece, not a medical review, and thus does not meet our WP:MEDRS standards for claims about health. It turns out we do have at least one review article in a MEDLINE indexed journal available on this (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31502923/), which says The available evidence did not conclusively demonstrate the anticipated association between FGM/C and HIV. There's no quality supporting evidence so these claims should be left out. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to discuss the debate over whether or not FGM has health benefits simply as a means of providing a more complete overview of the criticism of FGM opposition. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no real evidence. We can't pretend there is for the sake of propping up a critic. MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is also no debate. Every topic has a few contrarians, but per WP:DUE that does not qualify as a debate worth mentioning. If such a debate existed, and if it were notable, there should be an article about it but per WP:ONEWAY, what a couple of people think is not due for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Being that Pinheiro (2019) meets WP:MEDRS, I think it is important to discuss in this article how the author found that there is no irrefutable relationship between FGM and HIV simply as a means of addressing this issue in some way. Readers will view Wikipedia as a biased source if they find that this issue is completely omitted. By citing Pinheiro (2019), we can address this issue while also noting that the alleged negative association between FGM and HIV hasn't been substantiated. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The article already states 'There are no known health benefits.' - we should not enumerate every health benefit that doesn't exist. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Criticism of opposition" section must be overhauled

It is a huge section that gives WP:UNDUE to the critics of opposition/those who seek to justify FGM, and thus it violates WP:UNDUE by presenting these views as being much more mainstream than they are. And the huge length of the section is simply unjustifiable. There is another complaint above: Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#This_article_is_absurd. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C2F7 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The drawing is not up to date.

Coucou,

Female genital mutilation#/media/File:FGC Types.svg

Female circoncision cannot consist in the removal of the whole clitoris. It can only be its external parts (glans and prepuce). Ssirdeck (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That refers to File:FGC Types.svg used at Female genital mutilation#Types. It's true that the captions in the diagram use "clitoris" in its colloquial sense (the visible parts). However, the accompanying text correctly explains the procedure. Is there a suggestion to improve the caption? Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be wise to replace "clitoris" by "Cliotral Glans an Hood" to take into account the new knowledge on the morphology of the clitoris. No ? Ssirdeck (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is absurd

Roughly half of the body is devoted to 'criticisms of opposition' (that primarily consist of remarks from a couple of more or less irrelevant people) and procedures that don't even fall under the definition of FGM. What is this? Look at Circumcision for comparison; why does that article treat it like an ineffective medical treatment while approaching the cultural and historical aspects with a fairly good attempt at neutrality? Can you imagine what would happen if somebody created a lengthy 'criticisms of opposition' section citing a few random academics if circumcision often entailed cutting off the glans, or even if they tried it given what male circumcision entails? The treatment of this topic compared to the direct male equivalent reeks of misogyny. 2601:8C:4880:5450:0:0:0:A1D8 (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The huge "Criticism of opposition" section must be cut to just a few paragraphs. It is seriously WP:UNDUE as it stands. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C2F7 (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The following sentence is far from neutral or factual and presents the author's very clear opinion as if it were accepted fact, even as stating in the very next breath that women and mothers themselves are primarily responsible for the procedure. The purportedly misogynistic undertone is clear and absurdly inappropriate, albeit especially typical of contemporary American "feminism": "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty, and beauty." Drjaydrjay (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Figures"

The expression "figure(s)" is used throughout the article to mean "numbers" or "statistics". I made an edit to clarify one sentence, before noticing its more extensive use. If there's agreement, I think other occurrences could/should be changed similarly. My reasoning is that "figure(s)" is not necessarily widely used/understood by non-natives and could lead to confusion if used ambiguously (it was the case with me and I consider myself (though perhaps wrongly) to be an advanced English reader), hampering the article's potential to spread information and awareness on the topic. At the same time, I don't think the content of the message is changed by replacing the use of "figures". --o_andras (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Respectively" ?

"These surveys have been carried out in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere roughly every five years since 1984 and 1995 respectively." What does "respectively" even mean in this sentence? 1984 in Africa, 1989 in Asia, and 1994/1995 in Latin America? It's not clear at all... --o_andras (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph refers to two types of surveys knowns as DHS and MICS. I think it's saying that DHS started in 1984 and MICS in 1995. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq ah I can see that now with your hint. Maybe it could be made a bit more explicit? Maybe something like this: "These DHS and MICS surveys have been carried out in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere roughly every five years since 1984 and 1995 respectively." o_andras (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why no mention of this in Eastern Europe before the 1950s

Many of the Ashkenazi, Silesian and Galacian Jews practiced female circumcisions', often in front of people at the synagogue. They'd teach up and coming Rabbi's how to do it so it could never be prevented. This was at a time when Russia wasn't in control of those countries so the Jews couldn't own property and they weren't recognized as citizens. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you have some credible reference for that? JeddBham64 (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan and parts of Africa today are religions from Asia. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

90% of those not in Isreal were from Belarus. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Percentage of Type III (Infibulation)

"According to UNFPA in 2010, 20 percent of women with FGM have been infibulated.[42]"

The source of this seems redacted (dead link)

"According to one 2008 estimate, over eight million women in Africa are living with Type III FGM"

"UNICEF estimated in 2016 that 200 million women ... had been subjected to one or more types of female genital mutilation"

It seems that outside Africa, there is virtually no Type III mutilation.

8M/200M*100 == 4 Percent. That is a huge difference to 20 Percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.98.111 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ritual? - Again!

@KlayCax regarding this revert - I can see the need to distinguish cosmetic, or other ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures from FGM. Doctors presumably discount these procedures from FGM as they aren't inherently 'damaging' ie they don't 'mutilate'. Again, presumably the WHO definition doesn't mention such procedures since even 'cosmetic' procedures (properly conducted in sterile circumstances) may have psychological benefits, even if they aren't strictly (physically) medically necessary. However I doubt whether any of these nuances are conveyed by the word 'ritual' and tend to think that wholly inapt associations may be conferred instead. Briefly, the word is unclear and ambiguous in the present context IMO.

'Ritual suicide/disembowelling' or 'ritual slaughter' (as used to describe the killing of animals for animal sacrifice by some religions or for meat for other religions), or 'ritual sharing of bread and wine’, or 'pagan rituals' all refer to procedures being carried out in established (usually elaborate) ways for religious or quasi-religious reasons. 'Ceremonial' is a synonym given by M. Webster for this (the primary) meaning. Equally, 'ritual' can refer to almost tediously repetitive and routine tasks (the nightly ritual of removing her make up, brushing her teeth and preparing for bed), though this use is more often a noun than an adjective.

‘Ritual' can refer to any number of elaborate, established, cultural or social practices/ rites of passage etc, done in pre-established ways (often religious or imbued with quasi-religious significance). Most of these meanings imply a manner in which something is done rather than what, or even why it is done. Which of the meanings applies here and how am I to know what is meant?

Mirriam Webster lists the third adjectival meaning as "done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol. examples ritual handshakes ritual background checks", which I guess approaches the intended meaning here - ie not done because of the individual body or person, but rather done routinely to young females as part of some rites of passage at some stage prior to full womanhood. But if this is the intended meaning, why is that element not explored in the body of the article? The word 'ritual' is never used again anywhere in the article (though it is used in the titles of a small number of refs - some out of date).

Almost equally pertinently - if FGM is ONLY "ritual cutting", does that mean that similarly ‘mutilating’ cutting NOT done in whatever ritualised way is meant here, is not FGM? This is the inevitable implication of including this adjective ie that barbaric mutilation is not FGM, if it is done in some ’non-ritual’ manner. Actually it is surely the WHAT that is done, as much as the primitive WAY that it is done, or even the WHY it is done that both WHO and doctors and campaigners object to. It is called mutilation for a reason, which is approximately because it does substantial, irreversible harm with no known benefits, even when done in 'clean' conditions.

I raised this once before a few years ago when I first read this page. No one was able to offer any definition or synonym for ‘ritual’, or explanation for its presence except “but I regard "ritual" as merely having its ordinary English meaning”. I have to say that the ‘ordinary English meaning’ isn’t remotely apparent to me and the word ’stuck out like a sore thumb’ when I first came to this page. Flyer22 had raised similar concerns as far back as 2014 here - though her main objection was that not all FGM is 'ritual', rather than mine which is that the term is ambiguous and thus fails to clarify. Ironically the reason I came to the page in 2018 was because I wanted to know how FGM was distinguished from ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures, since I had just read an article on that subject by a physician who was complaining about, what she saw as, the overuse of such cosmetic procedures in western medicine on relatively young girls/women.

IMO, our present definition, apart from seemingly being a bit WP:OR, by modifying established WHO etc definitions, fails to state clearly what you say the object of the addition actually IS, i.e. to distinguish FGM, from recognised, legitimate surgical procedures. If WP needs to make clear that ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures are NOT included in the generally accepted/WHO/UNESCO definition - why not simply say that in the sentence following the WHO definition? There is zero ambiguity then. Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A source from the article is An Ancient Ritual and a Mother's Asylum Plea. A key point about FGM it is that is often culturally "inherited" in the sense that the next generation does the same as the previous generation because that's the way it's always been done, that is, it's a ritual. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand fully why FGM is usually done, but is that meaning actually conveyed by the word? That isn't covered by any of the meanings listed in Mirriam-Webster, though it's a bit of a merge of 'routine' (MW meaning 2) and "done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol' (MW meaning 3), but both refer to the manner of doing something, not what is actually done, which is surely the reason for it being called 'mutilation' and why WHO and medical people and campaigners object to the practice.

A key point about FGM … is that is often culturally "inherited"… because that's the way it's always been done, that is, it's a ritual. Firstly, by using 'often' you are endorsing Flyer22's objection from 2014, ie often=not always, so it fails to validly clarify the WHO definition. The article title is fairly rhetorical and thus unhelpful in a definition. I'm not saying the word is wrong - though its intended meaning has to be extacted rather painfully - I'm saying its meaning is unclear and carries unhelpful rhetorical baggage, and the word isn't expanded anywhere in the body.Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By happenchance, I noted yet another meaning of 'ritual' in the sources used in this article. "Group Backs Ritual 'Nick' as Female Circumcision Option"-The New York Times, 6 May 2010 . Here 'ritual' (admittedly in conjunction with 'nick' - a minor cut) is being used to mean token or purely symbolic. This is certainly NOT the intended meaning in this article, no one suggests that there is anything 'token' about FGM.

I also recently came across two uses in relation to 'blood libel' - in which medieval christian cathedral art is described as representing Jewish 'ritual' killing of christian babies - ie killing as part of (alleged) elaborate Jewish religious rites - which is approx. the primary meaning in MW dictionary - approx. synonymous to 'religious ceremonial in manner'. Again this isn't the meaning on this article since, nobody is suggesting that these mutilations are being performed in some elaborate ceremonial fashion - even if they are often performed as part of 'rites of passage' of girls of a particular age in some societies.

All these tend to confirm that the use here - apart from being WP:OR-ish, in that it isn't part of any standard (eg WHO) definition of FGM - is actually ambiguous and muddling. rather than being a helpful clarifier. I'm going to start an RfC about the word unless someone can persuade me that it's sourced and its meaning is clear to most readers. Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You and I have completely different understandings of ritual. The NYT article you linked talks about "ritual nick" where ritual means that the urge of the parents to continue the cultural FGM habit might be satisfied by a nick, and nick means minor. Why do those parents want FGM for their daughters? Because it's one of the rituals that is part of their heritage. The suggestion is that a "ritual nick" performed in the US would be a better outcome than the likely alternative, namely that the parents would ship their daughters to another country for full FGM. Many boys are circumcised as a cultural ritual, just like FGM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I understood what the NYT article was proposing. My understanding(s) of the word are confirmed by at least three very distinct MW dictionary definitions - none of which mentions anything being 'handed down' - accept implicitly in the same sense that celebrating 25th December is full of handed down cultural practices. More importantly which accepted definition of FGM does the word appear in and how on earth do you expect the reader to understand which of the three - very different- MW meanings applies here? And are you really saying that the definition of WHAT happens, the procedure, is objected to by WHO and western medical agencies because it is a cultural practice? FGM is objected to and defined by the fact that it commonly does physical harm and has no medical benefits. Details like cultural justifications and primitive equipment and crude conditions under which it is often done are excacerbating features - they aren't central to WHAT is done, how FGM is defined.

I'm not an expert, but presume that male circumcision is NOT objected to by WHO and other authorities because it is intrinsically less harmful. The 'ritual' aspect of Jewish and Muslim circumcision (and possibly some other groups) refers to the fact that the circumcising is done as part of an established ceremony, not to the fact that it is done for cultural reasons, which is true, but incidental. 'Medical' doesn't mean 'done by people in white coats'. But I'm not defending any of these practices, simply wanting a clear accurate, recognised definition of what FGM is. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

postscript You are yourself using 'ritual in two distinct ways - 'ritual nick' meaning purely 'token', a 'merely symbolic' small cut, whereas one of the rituals that is part of their heritage refers to an event which is a 'rite of passage', and presumably dense with cultural meaning, the antithesis of something 'token'. I just don't think we should be so vague and ambiguous about defining - what is in the end - a surgical procedure, or practice. Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)