FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.

While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.

While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.

There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.

While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.

While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.

In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.

It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.

Rather, my intention is to show simply this:

Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.

For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.

"...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."

Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.

It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.

"A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."

...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.

Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.

"Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."

Ritualistic cutting for boys is common in those same parts of the world. It's only a problem when it happens to girls.

"While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."

This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.

And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.

The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."

But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."

This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.

When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.

The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.

In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.

In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.

In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.

I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.

When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.

Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."

The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.

While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.

Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.

The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.

After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?

Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.

We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.

"Research" that involved "thousands of men."

I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?

What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?

What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?

What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"

Yes?

No?

Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?

The man in this case is being made an example of.

But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Especially when it comes to complications?

I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).

Why don't people care?

"Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."

Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.

Not too long ago, a mother was forced to sign consent papers for the forced genital cutting of her son.

 Contrast this picture with the one above

A father is deported for cutting his daughter.

A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.

While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.

Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."

This is the country we live in today.

"Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."

Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.

While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.

American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.

The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.

This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.

Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.

How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?

Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?

Conclusion
Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.


I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.

However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.

The following questions must be asked:

How far are actions justified by "culture?"

Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?

Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"

Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"

What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?

Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?

What about "parental choice?"

How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"

How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"

How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?

In the name of "culture?"

In the name of "religion?"

Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?

Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?

Relevant Links:

Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

The Faces of Genital Mutilation

If you have to make a face like this man and woman are making in these pictures, then you know very well that you must be doing something wrong to a child.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Men circumcising a newborn boy

Taking advantage of a smaller, weaker person, is the very definition of "abuse."

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

ANNE RICE: Misandrist Attention Whore

 

Up until about three days ago, I didn't even know there was somebody named "Anne Rice."

Her latest activity on Facebook was brought to my attention, however, and it has seriously pissed me off.

Who in the hell is she?

Apparently she's some famous vampire story writer with a following.

Perhaps this following is dwindling however, and she must be trying to find another niche, because now it looks like she's trying to become another yuppie armchair feminist.

It was the following post on her Facebook page that caught my attention:

"Earlier, we posted on the ghastly cruel practice of Female Genital Mutilation of little girls around the world. Immediately the thread was hi-jacked by people insisting that male circumcision had to become the topic. In effect, the little girl victims of FGM was shoved brutally to the back of the bus, and told their problem just wasn't important enough to rate a thread of its own, and until male circumcision was addressed along with it, they would get no attention. I was stunned. I mean I have seldom been so disappointed and shocked by sexism on this page. Let me also note: male circumcision is almost never a topic brought here by anyone UNLESS some one tries to discuss Female Genital Mutilation; only then do the anti-male circumcision people appear to hog the limelight and shift the entire focus. This is truly stunning. Here is an article from wikipedia on FGM for those who are interested. Thanks to Rebecca Hulit for the link. I will continue to speak out against this barbaric practice. I do not think women are second class humans. They do not have to wait in line for men's problems to be solved before we can discuss theirs. (And by the way, male circumcision and female genital mutilation are not the same!)"

It's almost entertaining to watch somebody complain about how somebody "hijacks a thread" with "sexist comments" by doing none else than attempting to hi-jacking a thread, and replying with sexist comments.

No, seriously, if she's looking for a new crowd, Anne Rice should try becoming a stand-up comedian. 

No one is trying to "hi-jack" anyone. No one is trying to "steal Anne's thunder." 

FGM is wrong, and there's no doubt about it. 

But seriously, anti-FGM activists like Anne Rice has apparently become would like to believe like they've got to work real hard to get people on their side.

No, Anne, its MALE genital mutilation people want to "shove to the back of the bus," thanks.

I replied with similar remarks.

Her reply to me?

"You're insulting and you're wrong."

That's it?

That's her big reply?

All I've got to say is, not very impressed.

I can see that all this really is for her is a contest on getting more viewers and readers. Well, it looks like her tactics are working.

What a horrible, sexist person Anne Rice is, for seeding more ignorance on this issue.

How absolutely revolting to see this sexist double-standard from people who are supposed to be enlightened.

Apparently pointing out that boys also happen to be victims of genital mutilation, somehow means you're sexist against women

"I do not think women are second class humans. They do not have to wait in line for men's problems to be solved before we can discuss theirs," she says.

And yet, this is precisely what Anne Rice proposes for boys and MEN.

Men are second class humans. We shouldn't worry about men, because women and THEIR problems are more important, is basically what she and her ilk are saying.

What WE, and other intactivists are saying, is that male and female circumcision are the SAME problem.

Forcibly cutting is wrong for both boys AND girls.

How insulting that Anne Rice accuses us of "hogging the limelight and shifting the entire focus," when "brutally shoving to the back of the bus" is precisely what SHE's doing.

Anne Rice couldn't be less enlightened on the subject of genital mutilation.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

Intactivists demand equal rights for BOTH sexes.

No.

No more firewall between men and women.

You can't have one without the other.

You can't talk about the horrors of FGM while ignoring MGM and pretending it doesn't exist.

It's insulting, ridiculous, and REVOLTING to insist people are "hijacking" the conversation, "shoving to the back of the bus," when this is precisely what is happening right here.

It's so hilarious to hear Rice go on about "second class citizenship" and being forced to "wait in line," when that's basically what she is proposing should happen for boys and men.

Clamoring "don't you dare steal our thunder" while shouting others down... talk about the pot calling the kettle.

One of her followers, one Natalie Mullins dares to reply to me with idiotic pap:

"I love how Anne posts something about female issues and is accused of being sexists for it. You people are seriously backwards. Here's the problem Joseph- Men HAVE NOT BEEN OPPRESSED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS IDIOT. There is NOTHING sexist about Anne posting about FGM. And if you want to talk about MGM, make your own damn post about it. FGM and male circumcision are patently not the same and any idiot can see that."

 
Oh, I see the way it is; cutting girls is wrong, but cutting boys is OK "because they've had it coming all this time."

Can this woman even hear herself talk?

"Not patently the same." What is the basis for this claim?

I can back mine you know.

They ARE the same.

YES THEY ARE.

And this is demonstrable.

WHY are FGM and MGM "not patently the same?" Is it the severity? The "medical benefits?" Is it "the research?" Is it religion? Let's have it.

What is the reason cutting girls is bad, but cutting boys is OK?

This is the equality sign I currently have up on my Facebook account.

It envelops it all; blue for boys, pink for girls, purple for intersexed.

It's high time we stopped pretending like there is this firewall between the sexes.

Highlighting one sex over the other IS sexist.

We are not arguing that girls be drowned out, yet this is precisely what Anne Rice, and other anti-FGM speakers, demands for boys.

ALL sexes.

ALL voices need to be heard, not just that of women.

To demand only FGM be talked about, but nothing else, is blatant and deliberate sexism.

It's so funny to hear people talk about how women are the sex that are not to be seen or heard. We hear feminist activists resent the burka. But I guess this makes it OK to do to boys and men...

"Payback time," as Natalie suggests, I guess...

The about section of her Facebook page states that Anne Rice is "Committed to defending the rights of women, children, and gay persons. Committed to defending the rights of women, children and gays against traditional religions that target them for special persecution and oppression. " - Notice the absence of males.

When women undergoing circumcision in Africa suffer problems, such as complications, life-long problems, deaths etc., the whole world knows about it, and rightly so.

But when the men suffer the same problems, boys being circumcised in the harsh conditions of the African bush, boys losing their penises for life, boys and men dying after their "initiations," everyone just shuts up.

Don't talk about it.

Yes, let's talk about the girls and women being forcibly circumcised in Africa.

But to talk about the boys and men being forcibly circumcised is "sexist hi-jacking."

WHY???

Not understanding that forcibly cutting the genitals of any child is a human rights issue is deliberate and willful blindness.

It's time to bring down the firewall between FGM and MGM.

Cutting a person's genitals against his/her wishes is the exact same principle and violation of basic human rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Anne Rice is a misandrist hypocrite. She's obviously a crowd-pleasing people pleaser with zero integrity. She cares more about book sales and popularity and doesn't give a rat's ass for actual equality of the sexes.

Now she's deleting dissent on her Facebook page while allowing deliberate ignorance to go unmitigated.

Being "brutally forced to the back of the bus" and having to "wait in line" indeed.

Equal rights for ALL sexes.

Related Articles: 
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

Anne Rice loses a fan; another blogger sounds off.