![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
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)
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 [1] 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)
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)
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
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
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]
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
-- Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] Jmatthews24 ( talk) 02:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi Dafteire, can you say here what your objection is to this? SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
{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)
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)
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" [1], so as to not mislead the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techelon ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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." [1]
but you didn't added a long citation for Bolnick. SarahSV (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
How many countries still practice this exercise? How many different religions require this? 67.234.7.138 ( talk) 21:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:9c36:5100::8c3 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
PMID 32457498 describes a POV concern I have long held about this article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
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)
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 [1] 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)
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)
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
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
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]
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
-- Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] Jmatthews24 ( talk) 02:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi Dafteire, can you say here what your objection is to this? SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
{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)
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)
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" [1], so as to not mislead the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techelon ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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." [1]
but you didn't added a long citation for Bolnick. SarahSV (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
How many countries still practice this exercise? How many different religions require this? 67.234.7.138 ( talk) 21:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:9c36:5100::8c3 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
PMID 32457498 describes a POV concern I have long held about this article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)