Talk:Female genital mutilation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 149: Line 149:


==FGM = Circumcision analogy==
==FGM = Circumcision analogy==

{{re|Pincrete}} {{re|Johnuniq}} {{re|KlayCax}} {{re|MrOllie}}


A user here added a section comparing circumcision to FGM, but the first resource in the article (Came [[Talk:Circumcision/Archive 84|across this]] from {{re|KlayCax}} on circumcision's talk. MrOllie also stated that analogies shouldn't be used.) states ''Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been'' '''rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.'''Doesn't this mean that this analogy is rejected and shouldn't be included? It seems like there's an agreement that analogies between the two don't work? (Note that I'm biased. I converted to Reform Judaism as an adult and underwent circumcision. Presently, I am extremely shocked at the lack of current neutrality on the topic. It feels like people are pushing an agenda on the subject.) [[User:OntologicalTree|OntologicalTree]] ([[User talk:OntologicalTree|talk]]) 04:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
A user here added a section comparing circumcision to FGM, but the first resource in the article (Came [[Talk:Circumcision/Archive 84|across this]] from {{re|KlayCax}} on circumcision's talk. MrOllie also stated that analogies shouldn't be used.) states ''Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been'' '''rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.'''Doesn't this mean that this analogy is rejected and shouldn't be included? It seems like there's an agreement that analogies between the two don't work? (Note that I'm biased. I converted to Reform Judaism as an adult and underwent circumcision. Presently, I am extremely shocked at the lack of current neutrality on the topic. It feels like people are pushing an agenda on the subject.) [[User:OntologicalTree|OntologicalTree]] ([[User talk:OntologicalTree|talk]]) 04:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:35, 2 February 2023

Template:Vital article

Featured articleFemale genital mutilation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 6, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Toolbox

Why no mention of this in Eastern Europe before the 1950s

Many of the Ashkenazi, Silesian and Galacian Jews practiced female circumcisions', often in front of people at the synagogue. They'd teach up and coming Rabbi's how to do it so it could never be prevented. This was at a time when Russia wasn't in control of those countries so the Jews couldn't own property and they weren't recognized as citizens. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you have some credible reference for that? JeddBham64 (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan and parts of Africa today are religions from Asia. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
90% of those not in Isreal were from Belarus. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Respectively" ?

"These surveys have been carried out in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere roughly every five years since 1984 and 1995 respectively." What does "respectively" even mean in this sentence? 1984 in Africa, 1989 in Asia, and 1994/1995 in Latin America? It's not clear at all... --o_andras (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph refers to two types of surveys knowns as DHS and MICS. I think it's saying that DHS started in 1984 and MICS in 1995. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq ah I can see that now with your hint. Maybe it could be made a bit more explicit? Maybe something like this: "These DHS and MICS surveys have been carried out in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere roughly every five years since 1984 and 1995 respectively." o_andras (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Figures"

The expression "figure(s)" is used throughout the article to mean "numbers" or "statistics". I made an edit to clarify one sentence, before noticing its more extensive use. If there's agreement, I think other occurrences could/should be changed similarly. My reasoning is that "figure(s)" is not necessarily widely used/understood by non-natives and could lead to confusion if used ambiguously (it was the case with me and I consider myself (though perhaps wrongly) to be an advanced English reader), hampering the article's potential to spread information and awareness on the topic. At the same time, I don't think the content of the message is changed by replacing the use of "figures". --o_andras (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual? - Again!

@KlayCax regarding this revert - I can see the need to distinguish cosmetic, or other ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures from FGM. Doctors presumably discount these procedures from FGM as they aren't inherently 'damaging' ie they don't 'mutilate'. Again, presumably the WHO definition doesn't mention such procedures since even 'cosmetic' procedures (properly conducted in sterile circumstances) may have psychological benefits, even if they aren't strictly (physically) medically necessary. However I doubt whether any of these nuances are conveyed by the word 'ritual' and tend to think that wholly inapt associations may be conferred instead. Briefly, the word is unclear and ambiguous in the present context IMO.

'Ritual suicide/disembowelling' or 'ritual slaughter' (as used to describe the killing of animals for animal sacrifice by some religions or for meat for other religions), or 'ritual sharing of bread and wine’, or 'pagan rituals' all refer to procedures being carried out in established (usually elaborate) ways for religious or quasi-religious reasons. 'Ceremonial' is a synonym given by M. Webster for this (the primary) meaning. Equally, 'ritual' can refer to almost tediously repetitive and routine tasks (the nightly ritual of removing her make up, brushing her teeth and preparing for bed), though this use is more often a noun than an adjective.

‘Ritual' can refer to any number of elaborate, established, cultural or social practices/ rites of passage etc, done in pre-established ways (often religious or imbued with quasi-religious significance). Most of these meanings imply a manner in which something is done rather than what, or even why it is done. Which of the meanings applies here and how am I to know what is meant?

Mirriam Webster lists the third adjectival meaning as "done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol. examples ritual handshakes ritual background checks", which I guess approaches the intended meaning here - ie not done because of the individual body or person, but rather done routinely to young females as part of some rites of passage at some stage prior to full womanhood. But if this is the intended meaning, why is that element not explored in the body of the article? The word 'ritual' is never used again anywhere in the article (though it is used in the titles of a small number of refs - some out of date).

Almost equally pertinently - if FGM is ONLY "ritual cutting", does that mean that similarly ‘mutilating’ cutting NOT done in whatever ritualised way is meant here, is not FGM? This is the inevitable implication of including this adjective ie that barbaric mutilation is not FGM, if it is done in some ’non-ritual’ manner. Actually it is surely the WHAT that is done, as much as the primitive WAY that it is done, or even the WHY it is done that both WHO and doctors and campaigners object to. It is called mutilation for a reason, which is approximately because it does substantial, irreversible harm with no known benefits, even when done in 'clean' conditions.

I raised this once before a few years ago when I first read this page. No one was able to offer any definition or synonym for ‘ritual’, or explanation for its presence except “but I regard "ritual" as merely having its ordinary English meaning”. I have to say that the ‘ordinary English meaning’ isn’t remotely apparent to me and the word ’stuck out like a sore thumb’ when I first came to this page. Flyer22 had raised similar concerns as far back as 2014 here - though her main objection was that not all FGM is 'ritual', rather than mine which is that the term is ambiguous and thus fails to clarify. Ironically the reason I came to the page in 2018 was because I wanted to know how FGM was distinguished from ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures, since I had just read an article on that subject by a physician who was complaining about, what she saw as, the overuse of such cosmetic procedures in western medicine on relatively young girls/women.

IMO, our present definition, apart from seemingly being a bit WP:OR, by modifying established WHO etc definitions, fails to state clearly what you say the object of the addition actually IS, i.e. to distinguish FGM, from recognised, legitimate surgical procedures. If WP needs to make clear that ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures are NOT included in the generally accepted/WHO/UNESCO definition - why not simply say that in the sentence following the WHO definition? There is zero ambiguity then. Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A source from the article is An Ancient Ritual and a Mother's Asylum Plea. A key point about FGM it is that is often culturally "inherited" in the sense that the next generation does the same as the previous generation because that's the way it's always been done, that is, it's a ritual. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand fully why FGM is usually done, but is that meaning actually conveyed by the word? That isn't covered by any of the meanings listed in Mirriam-Webster, though it's a bit of a merge of 'routine' (MW meaning 2) and "done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol' (MW meaning 3), but both refer to the manner of doing something, not what is actually done, which is surely the reason for it being called 'mutilation' and why WHO and medical people and campaigners object to the practice.
A key point about FGM … is that is often culturally "inherited"… because that's the way it's always been done, that is, it's a ritual. Firstly, by using 'often' you are endorsing Flyer22's objection from 2014, ie often=not always, so it fails to validly clarify the WHO definition. The article title is fairly rhetorical and thus unhelpful in a definition. I'm not saying the word is wrong - though its intended meaning has to be extacted rather painfully - I'm saying its meaning is unclear and carries unhelpful rhetorical baggage, and the word isn't expanded anywhere in the body.Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By happenchance, I noted yet another meaning of 'ritual' in the sources used in this article. "Group Backs Ritual 'Nick' as Female Circumcision Option"-The New York Times, 6 May 2010 . Here 'ritual' (admittedly in conjunction with 'nick' - a minor cut) is being used to mean token or purely symbolic. This is certainly NOT the intended meaning in this article, no one suggests that there is anything 'token' about FGM.
I also recently came across two uses in relation to 'blood libel' - in which medieval christian cathedral art is described as representing Jewish 'ritual' killing of christian babies - ie killing as part of (alleged) elaborate Jewish religious rites - which is approx. the primary meaning in MW dictionary - approx. synonymous to 'religious ceremonial in manner'. Again this isn't the meaning on this article since, nobody is suggesting that these mutilations are being performed in some elaborate ceremonial fashion - even if they are often performed as part of 'rites of passage' of girls of a particular age in some societies.
All these tend to confirm that the use here - apart from being WP:OR-ish, in that it isn't part of any standard (eg WHO) definition of FGM - is actually ambiguous and muddling. rather than being a helpful clarifier. I'm going to start an RfC about the word unless someone can persuade me that it's sourced and its meaning is clear to most readers. Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have completely different understandings of ritual. The NYT article you linked talks about "ritual nick" where ritual means that the urge of the parents to continue the cultural FGM habit might be satisfied by a nick, and nick means minor. Why do those parents want FGM for their daughters? Because it's one of the rituals that is part of their heritage. The suggestion is that a "ritual nick" performed in the US would be a better outcome than the likely alternative, namely that the parents would ship their daughters to another country for full FGM. Many boys are circumcised as a cultural ritual, just like FGM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what the NYT article was proposing. My understanding(s) of the word are confirmed by at least three very distinct MW dictionary definitions - none of which mentions anything being 'handed down' - accept implicitly in the same sense that celebrating 25th December is full of handed down cultural practices. More importantly which accepted definition of FGM does the word appear in and how on earth do you expect the reader to understand which of the three - very different- MW meanings applies here? And are you really saying that the definition of WHAT happens, the procedure, is objected to by WHO and western medical agencies because it is a cultural practice? FGM is objected to and defined by the fact that it commonly does physical harm and has no medical benefits. Details like cultural justifications and primitive equipment and crude conditions under which it is often done are excacerbating features - they aren't central to WHAT is done, how FGM is defined.
I'm not an expert, but presume that male circumcision is NOT objected to by WHO and other authorities because it is intrinsically less harmful. The 'ritual' aspect of Jewish and Muslim circumcision (and possibly some other groups) refers to the fact that the circumcising is done as part of an established ceremony, not to the fact that it is done for cultural reasons, which is true, but incidental. 'Medical' doesn't mean 'done by people in white coats'. But I'm not defending any of these practices, simply wanting a clear accurate, recognised definition of what FGM is. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of Type III (Infibulation)

"According to UNFPA in 2010, 20 percent of women with FGM have been infibulated.[42]"

The source of this seems redacted (dead link)

"According to one 2008 estimate, over eight million women in Africa are living with Type III FGM"

"UNICEF estimated in 2016 that 200 million women ... had been subjected to one or more types of female genital mutilation"

It seems that outside Africa, there is virtually no Type III mutilation.

8M/200M*100 == 4 Percent. That is a huge difference to 20 Percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.98.111 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FGM = Circumcision analogy

@Pincrete: @Johnuniq: @KlayCax: @MrOllie:

A user here added a section comparing circumcision to FGM, but the first resource in the article (Came across this from @KlayCax: on circumcision's talk. MrOllie also stated that analogies shouldn't be used.) states Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.Doesn't this mean that this analogy is rejected and shouldn't be included? It seems like there's an agreement that analogies between the two don't work? (Note that I'm biased. I converted to Reform Judaism as an adult and underwent circumcision. Presently, I am extremely shocked at the lack of current neutrality on the topic. It feels like people are pushing an agenda on the subject.) OntologicalTree (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_genital_mutilation&oldid=1136986779"