Anti-FGM Activism is radical, racist,ethnocentric and sexist.

[Geeljire]

well it's certainly not pretty but I agree in the fact that they only use these words for african/asian practices.

Honestly people would be in favor of a solid multiple point of view discussion surrounding this topic without using unnecessarily derogatory and divisive language such as "mutilation" and zero-tolerance policies, barbaric etc...

Vast majority of women who had it performed don't see themselves as "mutilated", "victims", or "survivors".

Read this article > http://www.shiftingsands.org.uk/fgm-i-hate-that-word-its-not-me-im-not-mutilated/

Getting an optional surgery (probably under anesthetics) is not the same has forcing it on a young girl (you don't think any young girl agrees to that do you?

That's the irony, so why do they prosecute African Women over the age 18 for doing the same surgery? Its hypocritical and ironic that some of those who believe that removing parts of the labia is awful even choose to remove parts of their for aesthetics sake. Makes no difference if it is for aesthetic or because of belief. Just because you add a fancy word "hood reduction" or "surgery" or ''cosmetic'' it is still the same circumcision. Which even gynecologists point out.

Even white girls as old as 9 years old get the practice done on them in European and western countries.

It is Racist and that is the only point I'm trying to make. If people for even a second try to dismiss it they are confirming what i'm saying is that the Anti-FGM crew do not care about anyone but themselves and profitting from it.

Ok first of all, male circumcision is widely accepted because it's a jewish practice

It accepted because majority are sexist people , it doesn't make a difference if jews practice it or not. The fact they lament over children rights and consent when it comes to girls but remain mute when the topic is about boys. Shows how insincere, opportunistic and sexist they are.

At least be fair in your standing is all I'm saying and not hypocritical.

And 2.) nothing wrong with female circumcision either, a lot of girls have gotten it done as babies, it's for hygenic purposes, and it leaves no traumatic memories as opposed to fgm which is done when she is older and cuts off more.

First lets adress the term ''FGM'' it is just constructed for pure shock value to charge some moral outburst in human beings. The term itself is racist to be frankly honest. The only difference between FGC in the West and what the racist call FGM in Africa are the terms they use for them.. FGC is very popular in the west even done on girls as young as 9 years old and to their adulthood.

The British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has declared that many types of FGM and FGCS are anatomically similar -

so, why are there still legal distinctions between FGM and FGCS based on race, ethnicity, geographic origin, socioeconomic class etc...?

 

[angrycat]

Honestly people would be in favor of a solid multiple point of view discussion surrounding this topic without using unnecessarily derogatory and divisive language such as "mutilation" and zero-tolerance policies, barbaric etc...

Vast majority of women who had it performed don't see themselves as "mutilated", "victims", or "survivors".

Read this article > http://www.shiftingsands.org.uk/fgm-i-hate-that-word-its-not-me-im-not-mutilated/


That's the irony, so why do they prosecute African Women over the age 18 for doing the same surgery? Its hypocritical and ironic that some of those who believe that removing parts of the labia is awful even choose to remove parts of their for aesthetics sake. Makes no difference if it is for aesthetic or because of belief. Just because you add a fancy word "hood reduction" or "surgery" or ''cosmetic'' it is still the same circumcision. Which even gynecologists point out.

Even white girls as old as 9 years old get the practice done on them in European and western countries.

It is Racist and that is the only point I'm trying to make. If people for even a second try to dismiss it they are confirming what i'm saying is that the Anti-FGM crew do not care about anyone but themselves and profitting from it.


It accepted because majority are sexist people , it doesn't make a difference if jews practice it or not. The fact they lament over children rights and consent when it comes to girls but remain mute when the topic is about boys. Shows how insincere, opportunistic and sexist they are.

At least be fair in your standing is all I'm saying and not hypocritical.


First lets adress the term ''FGM'' it is just constructed for pure shock value to charge some moral outburst in human beings. The term itself is racist to be frankly honest. The only difference between FGC in the West and what the racist call FGM in Africa are the terms they use for them.. FGC is very popular in the west even done on girls as young as 9 years old and to their adulthood.


so, why are there still legal distinctions between FGM and FGCS based on race, ethnicity, geographic origin, socioeconomic class etc...?

you're not understanding. A lot of somali girls have been circumcised aa babies, however genital mutilation is done to older girls (5-9) and instead of just a clip they cut off basically everything down there and stitch it up. And it is done for sexuality reasons. I think you're speaking about the general circumcision done to infant females

 

[Suxuufi]

@Geeljire say wallahi your 16 sxb. This kids rebuttals, vocabulary, sentence structure and understanding of various topics is way to enhanced to be that of a 16 year old. wuxuu wa maskax miiran bal qoraaalkiisa fiirsada. Waryhe were you home schooled or sent to a special private school?

Sxb if you really are 16 then you have a bright future ahead

 

[Geeljire]

you're not understanding. A lot of somali girls have been circumcised aa babies, however genital mutilation is done to older girls (5-9) and instead of just a clip they cut off basically everything down there and stitch it up. And it is done for sexuality reasons. I think you're speaking about the general circumcision done to infant females

It makes no difference how old they are when they get circumcized. Unless you are trying to make a consensual argument. Even boys get it as infants, so its not strange if girls get it as babies.
Now you are trying rearrange terms for what is essentially the same practice. There is no distinction between fgm or circumcision just different terms used for the same thing. One being neutral, while the other being a racist construct.

I have said this before you cannot cut of the whole clitoris without killing the person.

The practice is viewed as the same as male circumcision by the performers. Its performed for the reasons of aesthetics and hygienes.

The uncircumcised clitoris and penis are considered homologous aesthetically and hygienically. Just as the male foreskin covers the head of the penis, the female foreskin covers the clitoral glans. Both, they argue, lead to build-up of smegma and bacteria in the layers of skin between the hood and glans. This accumulation is thought of as odorous, susceptible to infection and a nuisance to keep clean on a daily basis. Further, circumcised women point to the risks of painful clitoral adhesions that occur in girls and women who do not cleanse properly, and to the requirement of excision as a treatment for these extreme cases. Supporters of female circumcision also point to the risk of clitoral hypertrophy or an enlarged clitoris that resembles a small penis. For these reasons many circumcised women view the decision to circumcise their daughters as something as obvious as the decision to circumcise sons: why, one woman asked, would any reasonable mother want to burden her daughter with excess clitoral and labial tissue that is unhygienic, unsightly and interferes with sexual penetration, especially if the same mother would choose circumcision to ensure healthy and aesthetically appealing genitalia for her son?

 

[angrycat]

It makes no difference how old they are when they get circumcized. Unless you are trying to make a consensual argument. Even boys get it as infants, so its not strange if girls get it as babies.
Now you are trying rearrange terms for what is essentially the same practice. There is no distinction between fgm or circumcision just different terms used for the same thing. One being neutral, while the other being a racist construct.

I have said this before you cannot cut of the whole clitoris without killing the person.

The practice is viewed as the same as male circumcision by the performers. Its performed for the reasons of aesthetics and hygienes.

The uncircumcised clitoris and penis are considered homologous aesthetically and hygienically. Just as the male foreskin covers the head of the penis, the female foreskin covers the clitoral glans. Both, they argue, lead to build-up of smegma and bacteria in the layers of skin between the hood and glans. This accumulation is thought of as odorous, susceptible to infection and a nuisance to keep clean on a daily basis. Further, circumcised women point to the risks of painful clitoral adhesions that occur in girls and women who do not cleanse properly, and to the requirement of excision as a treatment for these extreme cases. Supporters of female circumcision also point to the risk of clitoral hypertrophy or an enlarged clitoris that resembles a small penis. For these reasons many circumcised women view the decision to circumcise their daughters as something as obvious as the decision to circumcise sons: why, one woman asked, would any reasonable mother want to burden her daughter with excess clitoral and labial tissue that is unhygienic, unsightly and interferes with sexual penetration, especially if the same mother would choose circumcision to ensure healthy and aesthetically appealing genitalia for her son?

didn't you read what I just said? Nothing wrong with circumcising female or male infants however fgm refers to going beyond the traditional circumcision and cutting off most of the outside parts. And it's done when the girl is a bit older, and it is done for sexuality reasons-not hygiene. The hygiene is just removing the excess. It's a practice dating back to ancient egypt to keep girls pure and chaste that somehow caught on in other african countries. There's nothing hygenic about it.

 

[istaag]

funny how geeljiire cleaning the floor with yall. at this point it doesnt even matter if hes pro or anti.
way to many arguments on his part and just random mud slinging on anti fgmers.

well done gj

 

[Geeljire]

didn't you read what I just said? Nothing wrong with circumcising female or male infants however fgm refers to going beyond the traditional circumcision and cutting off most of the outside parts. And it's done when the girl is a bit older, and it is done for sexuality reasons-not hygiene. The hygiene is just removing the excess. It's a practice dating back to ancient egypt to keep girls pure and chaste that somehow caught on in other african countries. There's nothing hygenic about it.

I read it. You are trying to make distinctions based on name. Trying to separate ''Mutilation'' and ''Circumcision'' when they are simply terms used interchangeably for the same practice. Its like saying ''Height' and ''Tallness'' are two different things. Nothing wrong with ''Height'' but ''Tallness'' go beyond the traditional height.

WHO definition of FGM.:
'' According to the World Health Organization (WHO) the term FGM “comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons”. For the past thirty or so years, the term FGM has been mainly applied to African or non-western women and girls who have undergone customary or traditional genital surgeries. However, during this same period and especially so in the last ten years, many western, mainly white, Anglo-Saxon women and girls have undergone “procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia”. Some of these procedures are even covered by the national health systems in Europe, Australia and Canada to name a few.''
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

The only difference is that the term ''FGM'' is only applied to African and non-western women. Its a distinction solely based on race, culture, ethnicity, social economic status etc..

Like I said age makes no difference unless your point is consensual. Hygienes and Aesthetics yes this the reason why Somali women perform it on girls and see it no different from why they perform it on males , they dont want to burden their daughter with excess clitoral and labia tissue which they regard unhygienic, unsightly and interferes with sexual intercourse just like what the reports said and I quote ...

'' The uncircumcised clitoris and penis are considered homologous aesthetically and hygienically. Just as the male foreskin covers the head of the penis, the female foreskin covers the clitoral glans. Both, they argue, lead to build-up of smegma and bacteria in the layers of skin between the hood and glans. This accumulation is thought of as odorous, susceptible to infection and a nuisance to keep clean on a daily basis. Further, circumcised women point to the risks of painful clitoral adhesions that occur in girls and women who do not cleanse properly, and to the requirement of excision as a treatment for these extreme cases. Supporters of female circumcision also point to the risk of clitoral hypertrophy or an enlarged clitoris that resembles a small penis. For these reasons many circumcised women view the decision to circumcise their daughters as something as obvious as the decision to circumcise sons: why, one woman asked, would any reasonable mother want to burden her daughter with excess clitoral and labial tissue that is unhygienic, unsightly and interferes with sexual penetration, especially if the same mother would choose circumcision to ensure healthy and aesthetically appealing genitalia for her son? ''
http://www.popline.org/node/571528

Female circumcision/FGM is not performed to keep girls chaste or virgins that's a myth perpetuated by Western feminists.

 

[Daisy]

funny how geeljiire cleaning the floor with yall. at this point it doesnt even matter if hes pro or anti.
way to many arguments on his part and just random mud slinging on anti fgmers.

well done gj

When it comes to @Geeljire, @istaag's nose couldn't get any browner.