FGM in the United States

I was sharing this article with Jessica, and she invited me to post in on the FBC blog (does that make me the first male contributor?) It's an interesting follow up to the article just posted about FGM in Iraq.

Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement reviewing its stance on Female Genital Mutilation. While the Academy concluded by condemning the practice in general, it did make a controversial suggestion. It recognized a problem in the US with immigrant families who have a strong cultural tradition of female circumcision wanting to take their daughters abroad, or sometimes perform the operation themselves. The Academy suggested that maybe doctors in the United States could be allowed to perform a “ritual nick”, a small cut to draw a drop of blood but not damage the genitals, in order to dissuade families from taking their daughters abroad and performing a more extreme form of mutilation.

The author of this article believed that this was an example of multiculturalism gone too far. He believes that religious freedom and cultural tolerance has gone too far in America. He argues that allowing any form of FGM only legitimizes it, and that it could easily be a slippery slope to allowing full circumcision.

In an interview for NPR, Prof. Dena Davis, consultant to the Academy, defended the policy statement.

She defended it as a choice of the lesser of two evils, and explained that in a public health setting sometimes unsavory choices needed to be made (i.e. providing clean needles for heroin addicts to prevent the spread of HIV). She claims that in Indonesia, this “nick” has now completely replaced traditional female circumcision, and has become totally ceremonial.

She also says that the “ritual nick” is much less extensive than male circumcision, which is completely accepted in our society. According to the Economist article, she claims that it is a double standard to accept western religious ceremonies but forbids Islamic ones.

Prior to reading these articles I did not know a lot about FGM. I was amazed that it had actually only been outlawed in the US in 1996, and that the Academy and others were arguing for this compromise. I think the greater good argument (i.e. heroin needles) is interesting, but I agree it does not justify condoning this practice. Giving addicts needles, or young children condoms (her other example) simply seeks to remove risk from a self destructive activity. FGM is especially horrific because it is something forced on a young child who has no choice in the matter.

I believe in religious freedom, and that women should be allowed for instance to wear a veil if they so choose (provided they are not forced or in any way coerced into wearing it). If adult females under no pressure chose to undergo a religious circumcision, that would be a different matter.

I think a very important difference exists between male and female circumcision. The purpose of the male circumcision is to prevent disease, and it is generally assumed to increase sexual stimulation. The purpose of the female circumcision is to force women to be pure by removing sexual stimulation. Even if this new ritual nick does not actually cause physical harm, it is still a “ritual” focused around the idea that women shouldn’t enjoy sex because that makes them impure.

This is the article

This is Dana Davis defending the policy

This is another good analysis in the economist