U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
But there is a deeper problem. If we want to say the sheer existence of "health benefits" (especially when these can be achieved through much less invasive, non-surgical means!) justifies cutting a healthy child's genitals without consent, we create an incentive for defenders
of what they call "female circumcision" to try to find "health benefits" for their *own* culturally favored rituals, which is exactly what some are now doing (see screen shots below, from my discussion here https://bit.ly/2F78yCl ). But this is to miss the point. Genital cuttingpic.twitter.com/HwxcIEsqEw
is wrong to do to children, not because it does or doesn't confer (contestable) health benefits, but because it affects the most psychosexually significant part of a vulnerable person's body without their consent in a way they may later rationally grow up to resent.
If 'minor' or sterilized forms of FGM *did* have health benefits -- for example, neonatal labiaplasty might reduce the risk of labial cancer -- presumably no Western observer would then say, "Oh, in that case, I guess it's okay to do." See below (from https://bit.ly/2F78yCl ).pic.twitter.com/pj1kalDcXV
Okay, what about the claim that FGM is a form of gender-based discrimination? This is another claim by the @WHO I am astonished gets uncritically repeated. There are *no societies* that single out girls for cutting. As far as anthropologists are aware, virtually every group that
practices ritual female genital cutting ALSO practices male genital cutting, often in parallel ceremonies for similar reasons (https://bit.ly/2F4Sv7g ). Depending on the details of what is done, the male version of the ritual is often *much* more severe, as @Ayaan Hirsi Alipic.twitter.com/YBeNGcpprb
discusses in this interview (https://bit.ly/2BW7w88 ). By far the most deadly form of genital cutting anywhere in the world is "tribal" male circumcision as it is practiced in many of the same regions that practice female genital cutting; among the Xhosa of South Africa,pic.twitter.com/FDjybBUqwt
dozens of boys die each year from their initiation rites, with multiple penile amputations and hospitalizations (https://bit.ly/2VtYoQV ). Extensive, gruesome photographic evidence is available at http://ulwaluko.co.za/ - random sub-set below. Among the Xhosa,pic.twitter.com/l2OBR0IEM5
as in many groups (Jews, US Americans, some Muslim sects but not others), *only* the boys are subjected to genital cutting, & women openly discriminate against 'uncircumcised' men as undesirable, unworthy of marriage, and so on (see screenshot, from https://bit.ly/2Qiyufm ).pic.twitter.com/hGTGpTyCRL
When most Westerners think of "male circumcision," they think of medicalized US newborn circumcision or perhaps Jewish circumcision at a bris; they don't think of "tribal" male circumcision with the highest death rate of any form of genital cutting. Similarly, when they think of
"FGM," they think of the most extreme forms of female genital cutting (FGC) done with non-sterile equipment in rural Africa - because this is the form the Western media focuses on & with which the @WHO brazenly conflates *all* forms of FGC, collapsing multiple distinct practices
with wildly different physical & sexual effects, risk profiles, symbolic meanings, parental intentions, religious significance, and so on, into a single label, falsely implying that *all* are done to "control the sexuality of girls" and have severe adverse health consequences.
It is no surprise, then, that Westerners fail to think of, say, 'sunnah' female circumcision in Malaysia (https://bit.ly/2F4x6Mj ) or khatna among Dawoodi Bohra (https://bit.ly/2lgnX51 ), which are often done by doctors w sterile equipment & remove no tissue. But these are stillpic.twitter.com/O4J6QI3LUQ
*wrong* to inflict on a young girl w/o her consent, I claim, for the reasons I have already given. Yet other scholars who work in this area, aware that "zero tolerance" for even 'minor' FGM means male circumcision might also be seen as wrong, are making the opposite argument.
For example, Arora & Jacobs, previously known 4 defending ritual male circ, have recently argued in top-ranked @JME_BMJ that Western countries should allow "de minimis" forms of FGM, as a way of creating a buffer of protection around male circumcision (https://bit.ly/2F6OZcm ).pic.twitter.com/skGGmSWTXh
Their argument was then picked up by @TheEconomist, whose editors argued that, yes, we should allow "minor" FGM to be performed; otherwise, on pain of inconsistency, we might have 2 rethink medically unnecessary male circ, which no one wants to do (https://econ.st/2COqYFE ).pic.twitter.com/SNEcfKhmZ6
Defenders of "female circumcision" have grown emboldened, setting up professional websites quoting directly from @AmerAcadPeds support for "parental rights" in male circumcision for "religious or cultural" reasons & calling out Western double standards (https://femalecircumcision.org/ )pic.twitter.com/nappnxbfj9
Indeed, the @AmerAcadPeds had previously released a policy in which they, too, defended "ritual nicking" of little girls' vulvas on the grounds that this was "much less extensive" than male circumcision and the latter was also not medically necessary (https://bit.ly/2LOUZrA ).pic.twitter.com/UlYQFfjxKu
After outrage & push-back from anti-FGM groups such as the @OrchidProject (https://bit.ly/2VlUxp4 ), along with harrowing stories of pain and trauma from women who had been cut as girls, the @AmerAcadPeds quickly "retracted" its policy and affirmed that NO cutting should be donepic.twitter.com/DJILSga7yy
to a girl without her consent if it is not strictly medically necessary, no matter how minor or sterilized. A more recent development is that a federal judge, Bernard Friedman, ruled that the 1996 US anti-FGM law is *unconstitutional* as I explain here: https://bit.ly/2TrpsOV .
Friedman rejected the government's "equal protection" argument for upholding the law, stating (a) 'ritual nicking' is already illegal in all 50 states as a form of physical assault & congress does not have authority to rule on state-level crimes, and (b) as laudable as it may be
to try to protect girls from a "particular type of abuse" to which they may be subjected (again, referring in this case to the ritual nick, not "extreme" forms of FGM), a sex-specific law "does not logically further the goal of protecting children on a non-discriminatory basis."pic.twitter.com/aVK3O1SKBp
So this is just a heads up to people who want to protect children, including girls, from medically unnecessary genital cutting of all kinds. The strongest argument going forward will shift from the X axis (distinctions based on sex) to the Y axis (distinction based on consent),pic.twitter.com/t8xHiIlps0
as I argue in this talk, which I encourage you to watch (it's about 30 minutes and covers the latest issues prior to the federal FGM ruling) https://bit.ly/2GRAtaQ .pic.twitter.com/6zOZMMf25t
P.S. if you find these kinds of explainer threads valuable please consider supporting my ability to make them herehttps://www.patreon.com/user?u=10127829
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
