Hey AAP - Leave my daughter's clitoris alone

My friend and fellow blogger sent me a link with that headline a couple of nights ago and I instantly felt sick to my stomach.

Just wait until you read the actual article.

In very short, the AAP is suggesting pediatricians in the United States be permitted to legally perform Level IV female genital mutilation (FGM) which is constituted by a clitoral "nick," a procedure that is not physically or psychologically harmful, in the name of cultural sensitivity. They are hoping that by legalizing this, it will prevent the performance of more serious and currently illegal levels of FGM.

Not surprisingly, they are using circumcision, which in this country is not a medically necessary procedure (though it has been found in some studies to decrease the chance of UTIs as well as the spread of AIDS in third world countries), as a way to further their argument.

And really, I can't fault them there. From my reading, the clitoral "nick" is less painful and less "disfiguring" than the current male circumcision practices in this country.

However, even though one could compare the Level IV clitoral "nick" with male circumcision, as my friend points out, FGM practices stem from a completely different source.

"Female genital mutilation not only results in physical and psychological trauma (including long-term health problems and possible death), it is rooted in gender politics. Female genital mutilation is done to control women at their very core. Not only does it subjugate them to men, but it is perpetuated by women as well."

And, aside from all that, I just don't think it's wise for the AAP to institute FGM as a means to make things "even-steven." They're basically saying "Well, we cut off a boy's foreskin, so we should be able to nick a girl's clitoris" (which by the way is illegal). 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of circumcision and my son is uncut.

But I'm still completely stunned by these suggested amendments, regardless of what is hoped they will prevent.

And I firmly believe that it is possible to take the words "cultural sensitivity" way too far.

What's next? Foot binding?

Please go read my above-mentioned friend's outstanding post highlighting the details of this suggested AAP amendment regarding Female Genital Mutilation. She's also included ways that you can loudly voice your disdain for these suggestions.

Comments

[Callie]

I think this is a VERY important subject... I even feel that the word very doesn't even begin to cover just how important.

Don't get me wrong I am for religoius freedom, but there are certain lines that keeps getting crossed and certain beliefs that don't didn't nec. come from the root of the religon itself... and yes, I know i'm starting to tread dangerous waters, but FGM is not in anyway acceptable in my book!

It is a violation of the individual girls/women it has been, is being and will be done to in the future.

If I squint my eyes a little I can somewhat understand that AAP whats to protect girls from having this done TO THEM underground, unauthorized by the government... and that they with this suggestiion might hope that it will help do it in a more .. or rather "less" brutal way.

I still think of it as wrong! and yes, I think that it might be taking cultural sensitivity too far.

this is a way of keep women and girls down in several places. Do we really want that way of keeping women down to find a legal way into this country?

Like someone has allready mentioned, we aren't on the top to begin.

oh and btw, I do see circ of boys as a different subject!

[Di]

I don't mean to sound ignorant, but does the procedure inhibit a woman's enjoyment of sex and/or her ability to have an orgasm?

As for the abortion analogy...I was thinking about that too...but at least in that case, it's done by a person who is old enough to at least understand and be involved in the decision.

Yet I have a son who is circ'd (OMG...if he knew I posted this he would DIE!) Being ignorant of the politics of the procedure at the time (14 years ago), I left the decision to my husband who is Jewish and felt it was a religious thing. This doesn't bother me. But the female one does...why? I guess because it has the potential of limiting a woman's sexual pleasure whereas I don't think circumcision limits a man's pleasure. At least with the men I have been with. :)

A very interesting novel, Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See explores the tradition of foot binding. It is awful and frightening. And if you Google it out of curiosity about what it looks like, you may be disgusted and/or nauseated.

[Christy]

Esther, yes, people do choose to have clitoral piercings, but you have to be "of legal age" to choose to do so. Parents can't just take their newborn into the piercing parlor to have it done.

I am truly appalled that the AAP is proposing this policy. Am I going to have to call up my daughter's pediatrician and ask her if she supports this? I just can't imagine practitioners getting behind this policy. I can only hope that they call out the organization on it.

[Motherhood Uncensored]

I think for me, Esther, is because it's here in this country - it's not a ritual that is native to our country - that it bothers me. How far are we willing to take cultural sensitivity?

But mostly because FGM in ANY form promotes female submission - a practice in OTHER countries (though we're still a minority here, but let's face it, not nearly as badly treated as in some countries).

We can say all we want that legalizing something doesn't mean we endorse it, but I think that's a load of crap. If we had some sort of proof that this would help stop higher levels of FGM be performed, then I'd be slightly more inclined to believe that this might be a good idea, but as it stands, I think it's a step backwards for our country.

[Esther Crawford]

I recently helped an immigrant friend seek out the services of a plastic surgeon for genital reconstruction and was the person who took her to the hospital to have the procedure performed... so I have thought long & hard about these issues.

I'd much rather have a minor 'nick' performed safely in a hospital than have a cutting ritual performed at home or back in the country of origin. In the end, having it done by a doctor is to the benefit of girls.

I personally am not in favor of circumcision in any form - I didn't have my son cut because it's not medically beneficial.

However, one of the biggest life lessons I've learned from traveling is that it's easy to judge others' cultural practices based on my worldview, but it's not fair. If this 'nick' doesn't cause damage then who am I to tell moms and dads who love their kids just as much as I love mine that they can't perform this ritual?

The AAP statement says it would be "only pricking or incising the clitoral skin" which sounds less intrusive than genital piercings, which are legally performed in at least 3 shops that are within walking distance of my house.

[tracey]

Very interesting subject. I can only assume that people would have done the Female circ even without the government's condoned method, right? As Karen pointed out, it reminds me of the back-room abortions from years past. I mean, I can say that I don't believe in abortion, one hundred percent, but that I wouldn't want it illegal again, either, right? Perhaps this AAP nick may actually save some girls? Maybe a better option might be to start making the male circumcision age older; maybe by saying that only boys of a certain age (which can state that they understand what will be done to them and that they WANT the procedure) can be circumcised, we can combat the double-standard feeling.

Religious freedom... It's interesting. Circumcision for the idea of cleanliness - that I can get behind. But to circumcise for religious reasons makes me... uncomfortable. Not sure why. But I definitely believe that if we allow male circumcision for Judaism, then the Muslim equivalent for females should be allowed. No matter how much it makes me ill. (Which is why I don't like the idea of male circumcision for Judaism).

I do believe I am speaking in circles here. My apologies...

[B]

I'm with you. That is all. Because I am too nauseous to think any further than that.

[Karen (SubMommy)]

Ugh.

Intelligent discourse right there, huh?

I have a circ'd boy. I'm totally failing to see the connection here as, "We cut off the foreskin of a boy, therefore it's only natural that in certain cultures we also permanently damage a girl's sexuality and make it so that generation after generation of girls are subjugated to men and have no opportunity to experience a normal sexual response."

FGM is not the "same" as circumcision.

I would be most interested in hearing from a woman who had FGM done to her as a child. As far as I can see, circumcision doesn't fundamentally interrupt and short-circuit normal sexual response like FGM does.

The ONLY thing that I can think of as to the AAP's reasoning is to drive it into the light and give peds an opportunity to counsel families BEFORE it's done under less-than-ideal circumstances - for the peds to prevent the FGM equivalent of a back-room abortion.

[Motherhood Uncensored]

The truth is, Julie, that I think you CAN support circumcision and not FGM and not look like an idiot.

We're talking super major gender politics - a practice that is used to "keep women down" (which is putting it very lightly).

And yes, there are arguments to be made about the similarity between FGM and male circ, I (as someone who is anti-circ, but not crazed about it) DO think that there is a big difference.

[julie @ Mommy Said What?]

Oh, this is such a complicated issue. I have a hard time NOT being a hypocrite if I support male circumcision but outright reject it for other cultures and their female equivalent. Yes, it makes me ill, but who am I to judge?

So if in my own defense I say that the REASONING behind the two practices are vastly different, does that really give me the right to support my own religion's choice but not that of others? Is the line that one practice devalues a woman's sexuality while another practice serves to strengthen identity and a bond with g-d?

I'm just a lowly human trying to get by. These larger judgment calls are not for me to make. I was trying to take an even-keeled approached. Apparently, you're not letting me off that easy.

Yes, for girls I think it's wrong. Because I don't see/understand the point. Because it offends me. Because I see it as an attack on my sexuality. Because I read far too much Alice Walker. I don't know. I can't support my argument without looking like an idiot.

Good thing I don't mind looking like an idiot.

[Motherhood Uncensored]

Right. But seriously, legalizing Female Genital Mutilation? That just sounds really bad if not barbaric regardless if it's actually ever performed or not.

It's 2010 here in the USA. I just can't put my mind around it.

[julie @ Mommy Said What?]

MU - Agreed, but by the same token, it doesn't mean that simply by making this legal, people will head out in droves to try it. I think (*hope*) that people would recognize this as a compromise rather than an endorsement.

[Motherhood Uncensored]

The problem is, Julie, is that they have no proof that it will actually sway people.

And it's one thing to say "Hey, let's legalize pot with the hopes that people won't use as much heroin and coke" - but it's another to say "hey let's nick a girl's clitoris with the hopes that people won't go lop off her hood."

[Secret Mom Thoughts]

So scary that they are actually thinking of making this a policy. I understand being sensitive to other cultures but mutilation should not be included.

[julie @ Mommy Said What?]

OK - I didn't read the article yet, or MomSlant's post, but from a distance, if legalizing this (which doesn't mean enforcing or making mandatory) prevents more serious forms of genital mutilation, I'm not sure I see the problem. Smoking cigarettes is legal, doesn't mean I do it.

I choose to see this as a preemptive, safer alternative to current practices. That said, not sure that this method would hold sway with those who are performing FGM.

And just to throw another log on the fire, as a Jew, I'm totally behind male circumcision. I mean, come on, someone's going to be putting that thing in their mouth one day...

(Sorry - totally inappropriate)

[Joanne Bamberger aka PunditMom]

I was thinking the same thing about the foot binding. Who the hell are these people and what planet do they really live on?