American Academy of Pediatrics endorses "nicking" of a females genitals

[K and L 27]

If nicking females genitals is what is needed to build trust between certain immigrants and hospitals, I'd daresay that's precisely the kind of immigrants we could probably do without.

"If nicking male genitals is what is needed to build trust between certain immigrants and hospitals, I'd daresay that's precisely the kind of immigrants we could probably do without."

Why is FGM so horrifying (even when in a safe, sterile setting - UNLIKE what they'd have if they were to return home or brought in a doctor from home to be paid under the table to do it) when MGM is considered absolutely ok and normal? Neither practice should be done as a matter of course, and if MGM is a perfectly acceptable religious rite or demonstrated medical need when performed by a medical professional, what makes FGM so different?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why is FGM so horrifying (even when in a safe, sterile setting - UNLIKE what they'd have if they were to return home or brought in a doctor from home to be paid under the table to do it) when MGM is considered absolutely ok and normal? Neither practice should be done as a matter of course, and if MGM is a perfectly acceptable religious rite or demonstrated medical need when performed by a medical professional, what makes FGM so different?

Did you sleep in biology class when they discussed the male and female genitalia?

[SuperDuper! 230]

It's just a nick

A nick in time.....Boys been gettin' cut up for years. And now you have something to say?

[Danno 1,228]

Why is FGM so horrifying (even when in a safe, sterile setting - UNLIKE what they'd have if they were to return home or brought in a doctor from home to be paid under the table to do it) when MGM is considered absolutely ok and normal? Neither practice should be done as a matter of course, and if MGM is a perfectly acceptable religious rite or demonstrated medical need when performed by a medical professional, what makes FGM so different?

You make a valid point,

are they still "cutting" young Jewish lads at around 12?

Perhaps the "nicking" compromise is worth considering, better she be in a clean hospital than have them done in "back alleys".

THe whole thing sounds barbaric to me but as we are told, these things are to be between a patient the the Doctor.

Havn't women instructed us for years -Keep the Government out of her womb-

I'm thinking the concept still applies a few centimeters farther south?

[K and L 27]

I don't know about Jewish boys, but two of my really good college buddies (Indonesian, if it matters to you) were circumcised when they were around 14-16 -- both were well aware of what things were like before and after. They were both big advocates against circumcision.

From what I have read, the AAP was endorsing something that is less evasive than the most minimal of female circumcision (type Ia): removing the clitoral hood (analogous to the foreskin, which is commonly removed in circumcisions) NOT the more brutal clitoral removal (types Ib, II, III). It is a pinprick, nothing more. Painful, if done without anesthesia, but should not cause permanent damage. Women in the US do worse every time they get clitoral piercings (done NOT by medical professionals, incidentally).

Why is it that male circumcision (usually performed without anesthetics on infants, and not always with the consent of the parents - and rarely performed with the consent of the circumcised) is acceptable, but a non-permanently scarring pinprick (performed with consent of the parents - and given that this is considered a rite of passage, quite likely the girl as well) is so terrible ... but that same girl opting to see a piercer to get a clit piercing is again, acceptable?

I think it's a most odd set of values to say that it's absolutely fine for the girl to opt for a clit piercing, but honoring culture by getting a clit ####### is just out of the question, or to say that it's fine to force circumcision on infant males for cultural/religious reasons, but to say that a non-permanent ####### is unacceptable. Incidentally, there are rabbis these days that will allow a similar pinprick instead of circumcision on boys (one of my Jewish friends did this instead of circumcising her sons), so again it gets back to: it's absolutely OK to do this to boys, but not at all to girls.

Anyway, while I think circumcision in all of its forms is a terrible thing, I also think that pinpricks for either gender are better than the status quo.

[Der Bücherwurm 1]

Anyway, while I think circumcision in all of its forms is a terrible thing, I also think that pinpricks for either gender are better than the status quo.

Agreed. I think what upsets people about FGM is that it is very harmful to the girl and has no health benefit. Whereas, circumcision of males has some health benefits (it's more hygienic than an uncircumcised male that doesn't clean himself) though it is unnecessary (if an uncircumcised male cares about his health he'll pull the foreskin back and clean himself to prevent infections). However, FGM doesn't reduce the risk of vaginal infections and is not the same as circumcision at all. It would be like circumcising a male an inch further back, removing part of the ####### rather than just the foreskin. So a nick does sound like a better solution than mutilating a girl if the family is going to have it done anyway. Of course, it would be highly preferable to educate the parents and bring them into the 21st century.

[Danno 1,228]

Why is it when we talk about this happening to girls "mutilation" sounds so fitting but to use that term for circumcision ... well sounds (too me) like hyperbole?

I guess thats because our Western culture accepts as "normal", male circumcision.

If the only thing I knew about circumcision came from those starkly opposed to it, I would no doubt believe it to be a beastly barbaric act.

So far the only voices I have heard on the subject of FGM... are from those who strongly oppose it and I guess with language barriers and lack of resources they will be the lone voice on the topic for all of us to form our opinions from.

I have always believed that because different cultures embrace different customs and practices, some are bound to be incompatible with others.

For this reason I think it is completely reasonable to have a list of practices we require immigrants to agree they will not practice if they are to immigrate here.

It's not enough to just say it's... against the law, we need to give them notice from the outset.