UN: Female Circumcision A 'Violation' That Must End

UNITED NATIONS — Top U.N. officials are calling for an end to female genital mutilation, saying it violates fundamental human rights and endangers the health of 3 million girls who undergo the practice annually.

Anthony Lake, chief of the U.N. Children's Fund, and Babatunde Osotimehin, head of the U.N. Population Fund, called Monday on countries and organizations worldwide to help end the practice.

The officials say more than 6,000 communities in Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya and Senegal have dropped the practice because of a three-year-old U.N. program.

Female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision, is the removal of external genitalia to limit sexual activity. It can cause prolonged bleeding, infection, infertility and death.

Comments

[SpartanforLife]

02:40 AM on 03/08/2011

The tone of male-bashing is pervasive on HP. Sad that we see female leadership unable or incapable of creating any new paradigm of partnership with men in the last 40 years of Women's Lib. Instead we see anger and demeaning treatment of most male input to this topic and throughout HP. On a broader level the impact and loss to our generation is all around. Ask early elementary ed teachers, watch every nightly sitcom. Are there any men women respect ?

[Cailleach Echo]

08:42 PM on 02/09/2011

Its illegal in Egypt?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/egypt-female-genital-muti_n_258792.html
But legal in the US?
What about other countries?

[boys have human rights 2]

08:54 PM on 02/09/2011

It is illegal to cut a girl's genitals in the US, not even a tiny pinprick to satisfy "religious" requirements, it's been banned since 1996.

It is legal in the US to cut a baby boy's penis for religious/cultural reasons which typically removes the entire prepuce/foreskin and most of the boy's biological, sexual function. And it happens to approx. 1 million newborns a year.

[boys have human rights 2]

08:39 PM on 02/09/2011

"How about this, instead of splitting hairs we just end all unneccessa­ry surgical procedures until someone is old enough to consent?"

Absolutely!! Genital cutting is a clear violation of human rights (security of person) and BOTH genders should be protected! Male genital cutting also reduces sexual function/enjoyment by up to 80%! Sorry American guys. There is no medical reason to cut babies at birth and NO medical organization in the world recommends infant genital cutting.

Re: preventing STDs ... would you chose a birth control, that studies in Africa showed to be 60% effective in preventing pregnancy over a method that is close to 100%? What if the 60% method involved a sharp knife, permanent scar on your genitals, and reduced sexual function? CONDOMS prevents STDs, not amputating healthy, normal tissue.

Americans have been duped. Cutting foreskins off baby boys is a lucrative business. We didn't need to go to Africa to experiment on black people to find penis cutting prevents STDs. It's right here! 90% of sexually active men are cut! If it prevents disease, we'd see it here! But, sadly, we have one of the highest rates of STDs/HIV in the world.

Genital cutting is painful, risky, harmful, and UNNECESSARY - for both girls and boys.

[WilsonWilson]

08:31 PM on 02/09/2011

Interesting that a program can reduce the incidence. I would have thought it would be more difficult than that.

[Trittydi]

02:08 AM on 02/09/2011

Please, god.
*

[Giraffesarmyfriends]

07:26 PM on 02/08/2011

What about male circumcision/mutilation? And the perverted religious ceremonies that accompany them?

[ncyim]

09:23 PM on 02/08/2011

I know it seems so wrong, but there was a recent study that says it prevents either the contraction or spread of STDs including HIV. Not to be cheeky, but the Jews seem to have good reasons for their traditions.

BTW - I love giraffes too :)

[Giraffesarmyfriends]

09:54 PM on 02/08/2011

"but there was a recent study that says it prevents either the contractio n or spread of STDs including HIV"

Cite the study please. The practice of "Metzitzah" is said to give infants herpes.

"I know it seems so wrong"

"Not to be cheeky, but the Jews seem to have good reasons for their traditions . "

Maybe back in the day, but this is 2011.

[intactive]

04:14 AM on 02/09/2011

It certainly does not "prevent" anything. It may reduce the transmission of some rare diseases, somewhat, such that many circumcisions would be carried out in vain so that one case - which can be prevented or treated by other means - is prevented..

[Trittydi]

02:09 AM on 02/09/2011

It just happens that male circumcision isn't the topic. Go write an article and submit it.
*

[intactive]

04:11 AM on 02/09/2011

Nobody here has endorsed FGC - on the contrary* - just pointed out the double standard.
*There are educated, articulate, circumcised women (especially from Sierra Leone) who do endorse FGC (because it gives them ingress to secret women's societies). If it were only for themselves, no-one could gainsay them, but then they say
“While we respect and do not support the coercion of the minority to uphold a tradition they find offensive, we certainly will not allow the minority to impose their will and worldview on the majority of women who are circumcised and their prerogatives as parents to make this decision for their children, both male and female.”
(The full statement is not currently available at its source, http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=3752 , but a copy is at http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news32.html#fgm-free)

[Giraffesarmyfriends]

12:56 AM on 02/10/2011

I already wrote a comment, and submitted it.

[Jahli]

04:16 PM on 02/08/2011

Calling this mutilation "female circumcision" is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!! Would you call it "Male circumcision" if it involved cutting off the entire penis???? The goal of such female mutilation is to keep females from enjoying sex..... The use of the term "Female Circumcision" minimizes the practice!!!!

[Acert]

06:49 PM on 02/08/2011

The term is generally a misnomer, but there are practices that truly are "female circumcision." They involve the removal of the clitoral hood, which is anatomically analogous to the foreskin of the penis, but they leave the rest of the clitoris attached.

[TLCTugger]

01:12 AM on 02/08/2011

In 2009 Wawer/Gray reported that circumcising Ugandan men made them 50% MORE likely to infect their partners with deadly HIV. It is absolutely immoral that the W.H.O. has not demanded more study on this before allowing mass mutilations.

Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Europe has low circumcision rates and only 1/3 the AIDS incidence the US has. Whatever circumcision's effect, it is obviously neither neccesary nor sufficient to thwart AIDS.

[mp146]

03:23 AM on 02/08/2011

You got it wrong, it is the other way around.
"The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced an early end to two clinical trials of adult male circumcision because an interim review of trial data revealed that medically performed circumcision significantly reduces a man's risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual intercourse. The trial in Kisumu, Kenya, of 2,784 HIV-negative men showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to uncircumcised men, while a trial of 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, showed that HIV acquisition was reduced by 48 percent in circumcised men."

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm

[HerrMonk]

11:19 AM on 02/08/2011

Don't ruin his little rant with facts.

[intactive]

02:41 PM on 02/08/2011

That's about transmission from women to men, which is relatively rare. The 2009 Wawer/Gray study was about transmission from men to women, which is much more common, and hence of more concern. Wawer/Gray cut short the study as soon as they found circumcision didn't protect women (and before it reached statistical significance), but they don't seem to have worried that it might INcrease the risk.

[Hdaryl01]

10:08 PM on 02/07/2011

The U.N. is transparently hypocritical on this issue. Male "circumcision" is exactly analogous to female "circumcision", aka FGM Type I(a)

Here's a link to the WHO FGM classification typology:

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/index.html

IF irreperably and irreversibly amputating a female prepuce only is FGM Type I(a), then why is irreperably and irreversibly amputating a male prepuce only NOT MGM Type I(a)?

And, if pricking or piercing a females genitals constitutes Type IV FGM, how can surgically amputating a neo-natal male's entire prepuce/foreskin NOT be considered MGM?

As for the 3 million girls afflicted by FGM worldwide annually, 1 Million males are afflicted with involuntary male circumcision annually in THE U.S. ALONE. Each and every year, one every 36 seconds, 24X7X365.

The U.N. needs to adopt a pricipled stance and seek to globally outlaw genital cutting for all genders, on human rights grounds.

[loutreverte]

03:26 PM on 02/08/2011

While agree with you in principle, you are just another guy screaming for attention and crowding out a women's rights issue.

[intactive]

08:49 PM on 02/09/2011

But the UN didn't call it "a woman's rights issue". They called it fundamental HUMAN rights violation.

[Jahli]

04:22 PM on 02/08/2011

This comparison might be true, if male circumcision kept males from enjoying sex. It, however doesn't. Also, I know of no cases of a male being circumcised with a rock in the wilderness and then stiched up completely so that the first time he had sex the stitches had to be broken... The mutilation of females is barbaric.

[intactive]

08:54 PM on 02/09/2011

Sometimes it does keep males from enjoying sex - more often than anyone knows, because the doctor walks away, the parents think it's made him "maintenance free" and even when he grows up he may not know that his circumcision is the cause of his problem. If he has any enjoyment left, he may not even realise that he's been shortchanged.

Read more about tribal circumcision (which killed 55 boys in Eastern Cape Province alone last year, and 91 in 2009) and left many others with no penis. When you compare tribal with tribal, surgical with surgical they're not so different. In 1959, a doctor called Rathman invented a gadget to circumcise girls with a shield to spare the clitoris: http://www.circumstitions.com/methods.html#rathman

[iRock]

09:15 PM on 02/07/2011

male circumcision should be outlawed as well.

circumcision is just as arbitrary as cutting of the left pinky toe of every newborn child.

both of these circumcisions are sad and barbaric in a sense.

when communities are educated about the practice, many of them stop it.

[Waterphoneman]

07:27 PM on 02/07/2011

This practice is too primitive and brutal and should be outlawed immediately.

[stevobar]

06:14 PM on 02/07/2011

It is unnecessary mutilation based on religious superstition..male and female alike...

[marianproletarian]

06:08 PM on 02/07/2011

I just knew every comment would be from men equating female to male circumcision. Although I chose to not have my son circumsized, as I do believe it is cruel and unneccessary, they are not even close to the same. Castration would be more comparable.

[Hdaryl01]

09:57 PM on 02/07/2011

Then you don't understand the procedure(s), and you conflate the issues. Castration would be analogous to hysterectomy.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/index.html

A link to the World Health Organization (WHO) website and classification of 4 types of FGM, and many subtypes. FGM Type I(a):

Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).
When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, REMOVAL OF THE CLITORAL HOOD OR PREPUCE ONLY only; Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.

What do you believe male circumcision is? Isn't male circumcision removal through surgical amputation of the male foreskin or PREPUCE only? How is removing a female PREPUCE only as in FGM Type I(a) in any way different from removing a male PREPUCE only in male circumcision?

Furthermore, check out what qualifies as FGM Type IV:

Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

Now, these activities all qualify as FGM, and the practice of these procedures account for some of the 3 Million girls afflicted by FGM worldwide annually. It is certainly as stretch to conclude that pricking or piercing a female's genitals (Type IV FGM) is somehow more severe than irreperably amputating an entire male PREPUCE to which 1 Million neonatal boys are subjected to annually in the US alone.

[marianproletarian]

12:44 PM on 02/08/2011

Your link didn't work for me. Try this one http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

How about #2, excision, which you didn't list. "partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina)." Does this compare to removal of the male foreskin? Like I said, both are unneccessary, but male circumsizion doesn't result in:

recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
cysts;
infertility;
an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths;
the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Sometimes it is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing and repeated both immediate and long-term risks.

How about this, instead of splitting hairs we just end all unneccessary surgical procedures until someone is old enough to consent?

[intactive]

02:42 PM on 02/08/2011

The UN is talking about a violation of fundamental human rights, and that is how they are alike, regardless of severity.

[marianproletarian]

04:57 PM on 02/08/2011

I would have to agree. Children shouldn't be forced to undergo any unnecessary and possibly harmful medical procedure.

[mymind]

05:15 PM on 02/07/2011

These are religious practices, if anything, the governments should provide a platform to make it safe, just like mail Mutiliation!

[mymind]

05:17 PM on 02/07/2011

I mean...Circumcision

[marianproletarian]

06:03 PM on 02/07/2011

I heard "mail" mutilation is a federal offence.

[jour]

04:55 PM on 02/07/2011

It should be banned, worldwide, once and for all!

[HerrMonk]

11:18 AM on 02/08/2011

Too bad there's no all mighty world government to impose your will on the unwashed masses, huh?