AAP Advocates Female Genital Mutiliation

[Zarathustra]

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Is Advocating for U.S. Pediatricians to Perform Certain Types of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

EQUALITY NOW CALLS ON AAP TO REVOKE ELEMENTS OF ITS 2010 POLICY STATEMENT THAT ENDORSES PEDIATRICIANS' "NICKING" OF GIRLS' GENITALIA

NEW YORK, May 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- International human rights organization Equality Now is stunned by a new policy statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which essentially promotes female genital mutilation (FGM) and advocates for "federal and state laws [to] enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a 'ritual nick'," such as pricking or minor incisions of girls' clitorises. The Policy Statement "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors", issued by the AAP on April 26, 2010, is a significant set-back to the Academy's own prior statements on the issue of FGM and is antithetical to decades of noteworthy advancement across Africa and around the world in combating this human rights violation against women and girls. It is ironic that the AAP issued its statement the very same day that Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) announced the introduction of new bipartisan legislation, The Girls Protection Act (H.R. 5137), to close the loophole in the federal law prohibiting FGM by making it illegal to transport a minor girl living in the U.S. out of the country for the purpose of FGM.

FGM is a harmful traditional practice that involves the partial or total removal of the female genitalia and is carried out across Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and by immigrants of practicing communities living around the world, including in Europe and the U.S. It is estimated that up to 140 million women and girls around the world are affected by FGM. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated in 1997 that over 168,000 girls and women living in the U.S. have either been, or are at risk of being, subjected to FGM.

FGM is a form of gender-based violence and discrimination that is performed on girls to control their sexuality in womanhood, guarantee their acceptance into a particular community, and safeguard their virginity until marriage. Taina Bien-Aime, Equality Now's Executive Director explains, "Encouraging pediatricians to perform FGM under the notion of 'cultural sensitivity' shows a shocking lack of understanding of a girl's fundamental right to bodily integrity and equality. The AAP should promote awareness-raising within FGM-practicing immigrant communities about the harms of the practice, instead of endorsing an internationally recognized human rights violation against girls and women."

link

... [the AAP] advises that its members respectfully educate patients and families about the risks associated with FGC, while staying sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons for desiring the procedure in their daughters.

Does anyone sitll think the P.C. movement is harmless? Forget the mythical violence from Tea Party, this is gender-based, religiously-motivated mutiliation of children that has actually happened to 100s of millions of girls. And now we have an American medical organization compromising on this issue due to "cultural sensitivity." (I'm surprised the AAP abstract didn't mention, "diversity.")

Unbelievable.

[Now, before we start talking about male circumcision, there are medical reasons for this practice:

Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.

link So I suggest preemptively that the comparison ends there. The only reason to mutilate girls is to control them sexually.]

[SoulBiter]

Im stunned to see this...............

[SerScot]

How long till someone defends this as being similar to male circumsicion?

Patrick Rothfuss pretty much sums up my view on this issue:

blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2010/04/concerning-circumcision/

From the blog:

Maybe quoting a few facts would be the way to go. Don’t be accusatory, just point out why, exactly, chopping someone’s fireman off isn’t cool. Point out that since the foreskin actually has about a third of the penis’ nerve endings on it, cutting it off it pretty much the same as a partial clitorectomy. In plainer terms, it’s like cutting off a good chunk of a little girl’s clit. As you said in your letter: barbaric and creepy.

Think of it guys. You know how you think your Johnson is pretty awesome now? Imagine if it was 33% more awesome. Yeah. I know. It boggles the mind. I expect some manner of radiant light would constantly be emanating from my pants. Most of us would never leave the house. The fact that a piece of my winkie was torn off without my approval leaves me feeling a little bent out of shape. Figuratively speaking.

You could also direct your friend to a good website or two, so she can gather her own facts. www.notjustskin.org has a remarkably well-researched and easy to read FAQ on the subject. Including some information about how the surgery might be seriously traumatic for the newborns involved.

In closing, for all my fellow fellows out there, if your parents gave your special purpose the snip, don’t hold it against them. Because, y’know, that would be pretty weird.

[aliantha]

That's interesting. Here are the recommendations in the policy, from AAP's own website:

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

Opposes all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychological harm.

Encourages its members to become informed about FGC and its complications and to be able to recognize physical signs of FGC.

Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC.

Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.

Seems to me that what the AAP is really saying is that pediatricians need to find a way to tell parents from such cultures that they shouldn't have this done to their daughters -- but to tell them in such a way that the parents will listen to them.

[Zarathustra]

Aliantha, I wish that were the case. You seemed to have missed this part:

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

AAP's own website

That's the issue here, a "compromise" with Islamic parents who have to mutilate their daughters somehow, but are constrained by our laws. While the AAP claims that having your clit stabbed with a needle is "completely harmless," I wonder how many of you ladies out there would volunteer to show us just how harmless it is?

[/i]

[Seven Words]

Z, I agree completely. This is indeed PC run amok. It's utterly reprehensible.

[aliantha]

Having now read the whole policy (today was really busy at work), I have to agree with you guys. It seems as if the AAP is trying to be a little too culturally sensitive here. And their solution is literally a federal crime.

[Zarathustra]

I overwhelmingly prefer vaginal sensitivity to cultural sensitivity. It sounds like a joke, but it's true. Seriously, what's wrong with these guys who want their wives so mutilated that they don't enjoy sex? Women are just cattle to these people. I can't believe that anyone ever advocates respecting a religion or culture that is so brutal to women.

As Mark Steyn said:

President Obama makes fawning speeches boasting that he supports the rights of women to be “covered” — rather than the rights of the ever lengthening numbers of European and North American Muslim women beaten, brutalized, and murdered for not wanting to be covered.

That's fucked up.

And we've got female MSNBC reporters lamenting the fact that Times Square bomber was Muslim, because she's worried about our bigotry?? (I guess she was hoping--like Bloomberg--that he would turn out to be someone who is "okay" to hate ... like conservatives.)

I don't understand why feminists around the world aren't showing more support for these poor, oppressed women of Muslim cultures. It's probably the biggest single force of female oppression on the planet.

[Avatar]

I can see what they're trying to achieve by offering this as a compromise though. I don't think that anybody, if there were only two alternatives, would disagree that a token "nick" is better than full blown mutilation. Or that having it done under mdeically controlled conditions is better than people carrying it out at home.

That said, it's still a compromise of principle too, which doesn't sit well with me.

--A

[sgt.null]

I can see what they're trying to achieve by offering this as a compromise though. I don't think that anybody, if there were only two alternatives, would disagree that a token "nick" is better than full blown mutilation. Or that having it done under mdeically controlled conditions is better than people carrying it out at home.

That said, it's still a compromise of principle too, which doesn't sit well with me.

--A

then we conquer the barbarians and force them into this century. and i agree with Z - how can any liberal still advocate trying to reason with them?

[Avatar]

And if they conquered you, you'd be alright with them forcing you to do what they thought was right?

--A

[SerScot]

sgt.null,

I agree with Avatar. That's not the way to get them to change their ways. It would simply drive the practice underground.

[Orlion]

And if they conquered you, you'd be alright with them forcing you to do what they thought was right?

--A

Not like I'd have much choice... but to rebel by playing practical jokes on the guards( HO-GAN!!!)

[Avatar]

It would simply drive the practice underground.

Something which this proposal might actually serve to reduce.

--A

[Zarathustra]

It would simply drive the practice underground.

Something which this proposal might actually serve to reduce.

--A

Well, we might as well make child abuse legal to keep it out in the open. Underground. Out in the open. What's the difference? It's still child abuse. Once you make "ritual nicks" legal, it's not hard to imagine that Muslim doctors might make a bit more than a nick. "Ritual nick" would become the euphemism that these doctors would use to bill insurance. And (thanks to the Dems) my tax dollars would then be spent on performing this completely unnecessary procedure.

No, we can't budge on the legality of this issue.

[sgt.null]

And if they conquered you, you'd be alright with them forcing you to do what they thought was right?

--A

might makes right.

do you really think they will change on their own.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

Just FYI, I still oppose the "ritual nick". I additionally oppose conquring other nations to impose our way of life on them by force.

[aliantha]

Zarathustra,

Just FYI, I still oppose the "ritual nick". I additionally oppose conquring other nations to impose our way of life on them by force.

What SerScot said.

[wayfriend]

Boy was the thread title misleading! I came in hear expecting to see the AAP advocating genital mutilation.

[Ki]

Deleted--Never mind