No Compromise on Female Genital Cutting
I had a discussion with some people a few years ago about genital mutilation and specifically female genital circumcision (FGM). As a woman, I can’t imagine anything more horrific than having my clitoris circumcised. I was especially offended by a comment from one of the males in the group I was with; he actually said that if a girl had never had a clitoris, she wouldn’t miss it.
Salon just ran an intriguing piece about female circumcision in the United States which focuses on the topic of a genital nick. Currently, it is illegal to circumcise a woman in the US, but despite the prohibition of female circumcision, approximately 228,000 American girls have had their clitorises circumcised. A genital nick, which is a small cut to the genital hood, is sometimes thought of as a controversial alternative to a full procedure.
In April, the American Academy of Pediatrics revised their official policies on FGM in two ways. First, the organization chose to exchange the name “mutilation” for “cutting” for the purpose of cultural sensitivity and stigma avoidance. Second, the organization recommended offering “the nick” as an alternative to Female Genital Mutilation with the idea that less girls would be harmed in the long run. While some pediatricians touted this compromise as a win-win, the anti-FGM community reacted in strong opposition.
"The AAP's suggestions are the equivalent of advising doctors to agree to bind three toes instead of a girl's whole foot, or supporting child marriage at age 13 instead of 8," said Taina Bien-Aimé of Equality Now.
Due to the outpouring of complaints from the international community, the AAP retracted their compromise. The group came out against offering a genital nick as a compromise to Female Genital Mutilation, but kept the more neutral term of “cutting” to alleviate some of the stigma for those who have had the procedure done.
There are several different types of genital mutilation (or cutting); one procedure involves the partial or total removal of the clitoris, while others are more extensive. So far, there is little that can be done to reverse the procedures entirely. However, Pierre Foldes, who is a French surgeon, has performed some reversal surgeries, which can provide the women with some sexual feelings in their genitalia again. He notes that the surgeries cannot reverse female genital mutilations entirely and that the reversals are dangerous if not performed correctly.

















Comments
"A girl would never miss her
"A girl would never miss her clitoris"? Like a man would never miss the head of his penis? Because medically speaking, the WHO says they are equivalent in terms of sex.
Not to mention, of course, the health effects, pain during sex (and birth, and urination, and basically anything involving the area between the legs), the risk of AIDS from unsterilized equipment, emotional and physical trauma, and of course, death.
Wow. What a douchy thing to say. I hope you put him in his place, Becksta!
I definitely did, SaraJean.
I definitely did, SaraJean. Reading the Salon article reminded me of the conversation. There were several women at the table at the time, so I think he definitely learned his lesson.
Good for you, Becksta--I knew
Good for you, Becksta--I knew you wouldn't let something like that just be said without a response! :)