Friday, January 25, 2013

How would you react?

How would you react if all these women
were actually men endorsing Female Genital Mutilation?

* Snydermann's remark is false, an infected circumcised man will transmit a virus just like an infected uncircumcised man. Circumcision does not prevent the transmission of STDs to the partner of the circumcised men.

** Lisa Masterson neglects to mention that the foreskin has a high concentration of specialized nerve endings (Meissner's corpuscles) that are sensible to soft touch, and that do not exist anywhere else in the penis. All those nerves are destroyed by circumcision. So how come she says there is no nerve damage?

*** Clinton's statement is also false. The so often mentioned 60% is false if you omit the word "relative"; the absolute risk reduction (if we were to assume that the science behind the African studies was solid, which it isn't) is 1.3%, and not for a lifetime but during the duration of the RCTs, which was 18 months.

^ Connie Mariano is a doctor, but she is also Filipino, which would account for cultural bias. And the CDC does not recommend routine infant circumcision.

^^ Barbara Amiel, Barbara Kay and Abby Michelson Porth are Jewish.

Compare to this:

Indonesia - January 22 2013

The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) is bucking a United Nation’s campaign to ban female circumcision, demanding that the government keep the practice legal.

MUI deputy secretary-general Amirsyah Tambunan told reporters at a press conference on Monday that the government should continue to allow female circumcision, calling it a constitutional right.

“Circumcision is a part of the Islamic teachings that were recommended for Muslims, both male and female,” Amrisyah said at MUI headquarters as quoted by Antara news agency. “The MUI and Islamic organizations in the country firmly stand against any efforts to ban
female circumcision.”

Female circumcision performed by licensed doctors, nurses or midwives was legalized by a Health Ministry regulation issued in 2010 that defined the practice as “incising the skin that covers the front part of clitoris, without harming the clitoris”.

 Tanzania - January 09 2013

In the face of circumcision of thousands of girls last month, the government now admits that it is powerless to end the complex traditional practice that has led to untold pain and even death for the victims.

About 5,000 girls aged between 10 and 16 were rounded up for circumcision in Mara region alone from mid-last month, according to statistics provided by regional authorities, but a campaign spearheaded by the government failed to net the culprits. Female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation,is a crime in this country.

Uganda, January 07- 2013

The female surgeon looked like she relished the moment she would cut the girls. Her assistant was by her side with yeast. The girls assembled on a blanket on the ground.

With no hot water to sterilise the knives, the surgeon started to cut off a girl’s clitoris. The assistant sprinkled yeast on the thighs and in the private parts which is said to reduce friction and wetness.
The girls have to pretend to be strong and not show any fear, as weakness is culturally unacceptable and would have attracted scorn and ridicule from the crowd watching.

As blood gushed from the girls’ private parts, the crowd urged: “Be strong! You are almost done! Remain calm!” The cutting lasted about a  minute for each girl. The mutilated girls lay helpless.

Then they were ordered to kneel so that the blood could pour out. Once cut, a girl would be pushed aside, giving way to another. They lay facing up, with their legs pressed together as if to stifle the pain.
Most of the girls were in their 20s, although there were a few older ones. I am told the older ones had dodged the practice, but were tricked by their husbands who gave them a herb called “etyanyi” which hypnotises them.

Tanzania, November 2012

Serengeti. Elders in Mara Region have embarked on a campaign to convince boys to boycott circumcision as a protest against global condemnation of female genital mutilation (FGM) whose season starts in December.

The elders believe that their move to prevent boys from getting the cut will evoke anger among practitioners who will react by enforcing a revival of both types of the cut (female and male) and pretend it is an order from ancestors to cleanse the community, failure of which will lead to punitive measures

Egypt, October 2012

Mohammed Kandil (OB/Gyn)  from Egypt calls for studies on FGM concluding: Law makers around the globe are invited to review the legal situation in relation to female genital cutting. Proper counseling of parents about possible risks is a must in order to make informed decision about circumcising their daughters. The procedure should be offered to parents who insist on it; otherwise, they will do it illegally, exposing their daughters to possible complications. (In the second version of the article he states that he does not condone female circumcision)

Egypt, January 2013

Though the banned practice of female genital mutilation has nothing to do with Islam, Egyptian Islamists look determined to re-legitimise it. The implications for Egyptian women are dire

Australia, December 24 2012.

A MUSLIM leader and outspoken opponent of female genital mutilation says female circumcision, which he defines as the partial removal of the clitoral hood, is not only an utterly distinct practice, but the "divinely ordained right of a woman" under Islam.

"Islamic law permits by definition, by prophetic statement and by practice female circumcision," he wrote. "The definition under Islamic law for female circumcision is exclusively the removal of the uppermost extra skin at the top of the clitoral glans.

"Female circumcision in its legitimate form is a personal and human right of a woman; genital mutilation is a horrible crime."

Imam Afroz indicated he believed the practice should only be performed on post-pubescent women. The imam argued his definition of female circumcision was the same as labiaplasty, or genital cosmetic surgery, which was legal in Australia.

The committee's concept of a nick was far les intrusive than infant male circumcision.

''[It] would remove no tissue, would not touch any significant organ but, rather [it] would be a small nick of the clitoral hood which is the equivalent of the male foreskin - nothing that would scar, nothing that would do damage,'' Dr Diekema said.

He said the ethical rationale for such a suggestion was ''harm minimisation''.


  1. Yes, very true. Women in general must stop and think for a moment the words they're saying.

    It's like you said, how would they react if men were actually endorsing Female Genital Mutilation?

    They would call them barbaric and uncivilized... so, why their words aren't different when they endorse Male Genital Mutilation?

  2. Horrifying that these women can get away with advocating for genital mutilation and legalized rape of boys under 18!