A Culturally Relative Approach to Genital Mutilation?

WARNING: This article contains two links which should not be clicked by the squeamish. Before researching and writing this article, I knew my opinion on circumcision: it is a barbaric, unnecessary ritual which should be ended. However, while I knew this intellectually, I had never seen a full description of the processes. I would not post these links but for the fact that the knowledge of what these processes entails is not well circulated. For those who do not click the link, I will only say that calling male circumcision ‘a quick snip’ is a horrendous mishandling of the truth. And while I knew female circumcision was bad, I had no idea of the extent. Both should be called exactly what they are: genital mutilation, and the removal of large amounts of tissue from one of the most sensitive and important areas of a newborn child, one who by the very nature of human development, is not yet able to consent. In my perfect world, it would be a criminal offense similar to child abuse. I am sickened that either of these practice was ever carried out, let alone in the 21st century. My physical response to reading about these procedures was similar to what I have had in watching modern horror movies, my stomach is still upset. I would expect this sort of description of a torture practice, not of a procedure done on children. So why then would such a practice gain a foothold in our society?

A peculiar similarity among most religions is a preoccupation with sex, perhaps as a result of lack of knowledge about the process of menstruation (as many religions have labeled it ‘unclean’). And this preoccupation, like others, is often supported by rituals which range from harmless to grotesque. One of the more common procedures is genital mutilation, a practice that was called ‘circumcision’, performed on both young boys and young girls. And while (WARNING: this is the first of the links) male circumcision has long been a religious ritual, especially in Judaism and Islam, over the last hundred years it has taken hold in America, Australia, parts of Canada, and New Zealand. This surge was most likely caused by the development of germ theory, with the attempt of helping hygiene. As well, during the early days of AIDS, several studies found that circumcision decreased the risk of contracting AIDS and other STDs. These studies were cast into suspicion by later studies which failed to duplicate their results. The American Medical association reported in 1999 that “virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision”. (WARNING: This is the second of the links) Female circumcision, on the other hand, is only practiced as a religious and cultural ritual, and mostly in Asia, Africa, and if possible, is an even more horrendous practice. Worse, while male circumcision, as practiced in most countries, is at least a surgical process, involving anesthetic, sterilized tools, and doctors, female circumcision is pretty much an anything goes practice, leaving many women infertile, and many more with complications in childbirth. That would be bad enough, if the process itself weren’t the removal of a very important part of the human body. There are some things about my body I don’t like or need. For example, my baby toe is hardly used, and has caused me much pain, having been broken, as well as infected multiple times. If I could wish it away, I might. But would I want it to have been removed, in my past, without my consent? Not a chance. Now if you extend that principle to parts of my body that are useful, it becomes even stronger a position. Nobody, not a parent, not a religious ‘expert’, maybe a doctor in life-altering or threatening cases, has the right to remove a part of somebody’s body without their consent.

In 1997, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out strongly against Female Genital Mutilation, causing the common use of the term (which was later extended to UN use as well), and its illegality in America. And in the same year, the Female Genital Mutilation Act was passed, banning any genital surgery on girls under the age of consent. It is a pity this courtesy was not extended to boys, as over 60% of boys are circumcised today. Now, this is down from 80% not too long ago, and I can only hope this number will decline. As well, (WARNING: one more) recent uproar against male genital mutilation has grown, so perhaps that change will come too.

But the same AAP, this year, proposed a change of this policy to allow for ceremonial prickings or incisions of a young girl’s clitoris. Thankfully, there was a huge backlash against this suggestion, and it has since been rescinded, but it is a not so gentle reminder that we live in a modern world where barbaric practices of the past still rear their ugly head.

Which brings up an further question. Am I being culturally insensitive? After all, Christian missionaries forbade the practice of FGM, it became a rallying point in several nationalistic movements. It’s a cultural tradition! Bullshit. We live in a modern world, where we can question the religious and cultural artifacts of our past. If they are found lacking, perhaps they shouldn’t be forcibly removed, but they certainly shouldn’t be imposed where consent can’t be given. The history of the progressive movement has been the systematic elimination of cultural traditions which violate basic human rights, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia. These may all be works in progress, and some may be nearer to completion than others, but this is one goal we must always strive to further complete. There can be no lapse in vigilance in the fight for basic human rights.