The ongoing deprofessionalization of American medicine was furthered by a just released opinion of the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatricians, which opined that female genital mutilation is wrong–gee, really?–but that pediatricians should, perhaps, be allowed to give a symbolic “nick” to prevent more extensive harm to the girl by parents taking her to the home country. The entire documents reeks of cultural relativism and terminal nonjudgmentalism.
First, the report objects to using the term “mutilation.” From the report, “Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors:”
The language to describe this spectrum of procedures is controversial. Some commentators prefer “female circumcision,” but others object that this term trivializes the procedure, falsely confers on it the respectability afforded to male circumcision in the West, or implies a medical context.4 The commonly used “female genital mutilation” is also problematic. Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West. In addition, “mutilation” is an inflammatory term that tends to foreclose communication and that fails to respect the experience of the many women who have had their genitals altered and who do not perceive themselves as “mutilated.” It is paradoxical to recommend “culturally sensitive counseling” while using culturally insensitive language. “Female genital cutting” is a neutral, descriptive term.
Ugh! But whether we call it mutilation or cutting, doctors should not to be “neutral” about a barbaric practice that has no place in a free society. We need to condemn it unequivocally and prevent it from happening here, a matter already mandated in the law, which makes this “compromise” so unnecessary:
In the United States, federal legislation in 1996 criminalized the performance of FGC by practitioners on female infants and children or adolescents younger than 18 years and mandated development of educational programs at the community level and for physicians about the harmful consequences of the practice. Various state laws exist as well.
Countries that have refused any compromise have seen the practice abandoned by immigrant communities:
Many anti-FGC activists in the West, including women from African countries, strongly oppose any compromise that would legitimize even the most minimal procedure. There is also some evidence (eg, in Scandinavia) that a criminalization of the practice, with the attendant risk of losing custody of one’s children, is one of the factors that led to abandonment of this tradition among Somali immigrants.
That lesson is lost on the bioethics committee–which scandalously equates male circumcision–that does not harm function and has actual health benefits–with female genital cutting:
The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant’s genitals. Of course, parental decision-making is not without limits, and pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to cause harm to children. 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.
Female genital mutilation is designed to prevent women from experiencing sexual pleasure. Pure and simple, it intends to subjugate them and deny their equal dignity–and is hence, a frontal attack on human exceptionalism.
This opinion is a craven act of cultural relativism, and hence, a first step toward a total collapse of principle on the issue. Moreover, it furthers the trend toward making doctors technocrat order takers rather than professionals. More urgently, cutting girls’ genitalia is abuse–even making a small and medical unnecessary incision–as if that will satisfy families who want to destroy a girl’s sexuality to keep here eligible for marriage, in any event. Doctors who learn of plans to cut girls–or who see evidence of mutilations–should report families to authorities as they would other abuse. Zero tolerance.
May 15th, 2010 | 11:29 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap and the original, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Report: Bioethics Report: Pediatricans Can Engage in “Symbolic” Female Genital Mutilation » Secondhand Smoke | http://shar.es/m4l6h [...]
May 15th, 2010 | 12:55 pm
Poor doctors never see the hand writing on the wall . They begin with the premise they can be gods choosing which babies should live and which should die. Should they now play god with a woman’s right to feel pleasure of sex today without seeing what tomorrow will bring? With time, the law of the land will DEMAND that they perform all such surgery even though they themselves might have a change of heart and start to realize they are not god in their later years. Dangerous ground lies ahead but the Medical professionals can not see nor smell the quick sand.
May 15th, 2010 | 3:55 pm
You had me until you said, “male circumcision–that does not harm function and has actual health benefits.”
That statement is woefully uninformed. It is only the US culture that tells people that the male foreskin has no function and that it is OK to mutilate the genitals of baby boys. Men who have been circumcised since birth have no idea what they are missing. The medical industry ignores the studies that describe the function and pleasure attributed to the foreskin. I guess they make too much money cutting babies. Now they want to make money cutting girls.
We have a great gender disparity in the US. It is terrible to alter the sex organs of girls, even if it is a nick. But, it is OK to remove a significant portion of erogenous tissue from a baby boy’s sex organ. Every child deserves to keep all of their genitalia. No child should have their sex organ altered.
May 15th, 2010 | 4:25 pm
“Health educators must also be prepared to explain to parents from outside North America why male genital alteration is routinely practiced here but female genital alteration is routinely condemned.”
This comes directly from the article you sited and I have yet to see the valid explanation. Moreover, I am not from outside North America!
I was appalled to learn that just 50 years ago, there were American doctors advocating various forms of female circumcision to treat a variety of difficulties for women or more specifically for their partners.
May 15th, 2010 | 4:50 pm
I kind of suspected the comments on this would turn into a series of manifestos from the anti-male-circumcision folks.
That aside, who in their right mind thinks that a “ritual nick”, which makes doctors complicit in female circumcision by suggesting there is any benefit to it, will make the real deal *less* common?
May 15th, 2010 | 9:27 pm
Ummm…manifestos, eh? How about, as Catholics, we just go ahead and leave both male and female bodies the way God made them? There are Catholic theologians who agree. Btw, I was surprised to realize that here in the U.S., certain insurance companies covered female circumcision until the late 70′s. The whole thing is appalling!
May 15th, 2010 | 10:50 pm
perhaps this is a good thing. some long overdue gender equality on the issue might force a reevaluation of male circumcision. after all, how is a ‘symbolic nick’ on a girl so terrible when the radical amputation of an entire erogenous structure from a boy is of no moment? it’s utterly illogical.
so in response to those who think only girls are worth protecting from this barbaric fetish, nick away!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 12:13 am
The anti circumcision obsession that I know will come would dissuade me from commenting on female genital mutilation, were it not so important. Circumcision is of little moment if done or not done, in my view. There is modest medical value, and I don’t see any downside. What I find odd is that some men who were circumcised somehow think sex would be so much better if they weren’t. But whether there is a difference or not in the level or quality of sexual sensation, circumcision does not interfere with or destroy the male sexual function or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. THAT IS THE VERY POINT OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. That’s a huge difference.
May 16th, 2010 | 12:13 am
… and SparcVark, perhaps the “anti-male-circumcision folks” have a valid and significant point. It might be more productive, in the context of this discussion, if you applied your skeptical and inquiring mind to the manifestos of the “anti-child’s-own-body” folks.
May 16th, 2010 | 12:27 am
With the male circumcision rate in the US dropping like a stone, I guess you can’t blame the AAP for trying to influence congress to legalize FGM so they can replace the lost income on a different destructive non-consensual amputation.
May 16th, 2010 | 1:32 am
… you couldn’t be more mistaken Wesley J. Smith.
by far the most common form of ‘female circumcision’ is exactly this ‘symbolic nick’, ie ‘sunna’ as practiced by millions of parents in Malaysia and other Muslim countries. it is nothing like the horrendous extremes of clitoridectomy and infibulation that occur in the middle east and African subcontinent. indeed, sometimes sunna is performed by rubbing dried chili on the clitoris, and the skin is not even broken.
so ‘sunna’ is really of no consequence to the anatomy or function of the vulva, although presumably impacts on the psyche of the four to six year old girls (typically) who experience it.
in stark contrast, male circumcision removes the entire foreskin, a structure representing upwards of half of the skin area of the penis, the focus of erogeneity and a structure integral to and functional in both normal coition and masturbation.
in infant circumcision, the foreskin is still attached to the glans, much as a nail is to a finger, so it must first be torn away. research shows quite conclusively that painful neonatal procedures predispose to long term cortisol sensitivity, setting the child up for stress related illness including but not limited to ptsd and depression.
cutting off the foreskin has an extremely negative an complicating impact on male sexuality, and THAT IS THE VERY POINT OF MALE GENITAL MUTILATION. what’s more, nobody has a right to take parts from a child’s body unless it is medically necessary. to do so is unethical and in any other context, criminal.
circumcision is popular in the the US today for one single reason, it was believed to be a measure against childhood masturbation. QED.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 10:45 am
jono: Sorry, I can’t get too upset. But here’s another point: THE PURPOSE of female genital mutilation–EVEN THE “SYMBOLIC” NICK–IS SUBJUGATION OF WOMEN. The exact opposite is true of circumcision, particularly given that religions/cultures that practice it give men the first chair.
May 16th, 2010 | 2:03 am
That is AWFUL.
May 16th, 2010 | 2:20 am
I don’t get the strange logic of allowing a symbolic cut. I’m British, there is a history of slave trading in my culture before it was made illegal. By this logic I should be allowed to chain up some black people for a couple of hours the first Saturday of each month.
Slavery is against the law because it’s deeply, deeply wrong. Female circumcision is against the law because it is deeply, deeply wrong. Yes, you may stop some worse mutilation in the current generation but the price you pay is to keep the threat going forever.
Female circumcision happens because it’s cultural. Once the majority of the population stop the practice it stops being the norm and will die out in a few generations.
On the other point, what is it with Americans and cutting up children’s genitals. Mr Smith above states he doesn’t see any downside??? I would say over 100 dead newborn boys a year in the USA is a rather big downside. I quite assure you that we in Europe are doing just fine intact.
May 16th, 2010 | 6:17 am
Wesley J Smith says, “Circumcision is of little moment if done or not done, in my view. There is modest medical value, and I don’t see any downside. What I find odd is that some men who were circumcised somehow think sex would be so much better if they weren’t. ”
This is such a crazy ill informed statement it’s hard to know where to begin in contradicting it. It’s rather like the people who insisted the naked Emperor was wearing VERY FINE CLOTHES and HOW DARE anyone suggest otherwise.
The male foreskin is 15 square inches of primary erogenous zone. It contains nervous tissue which is unique on the human body and extraordinarily rich in fine touch neuroreceptors. That’s why the President Elect of the International Society of Sexual Medicine says it causes an ‘almost universal’ reduction in sensation. The Victorians who instituted mass male circumcision across anglophone societies did so to reduce masturbation by reducing his pleasure in his organ – and recent research has shown that male circ does indeed make masturbation harder in 2/3 of subjects.
The cleanliness stuff came after as damaging sexuality became less acceptible. And it’s important to note cleanliness – and aesthetics – are commonly given as reasons to cut women.
Facts you are also ignoring Wesley are that many female circumcisions cut only her foreskin (hood) or her labia. And that even the harshest type – infibulation and excision doesn’t typically prevent orgasm.
Your position is culturally and personally blinded. I symphathise with your reasons for denying the facts about male circumcision but this denialism is going too far. It’s the reason America can’s stop doing it..
Forced male circumcision IS an attack on male sensuality and IT IS WRONG.
May 16th, 2010 | 8:38 am
Wesley correctly notes:
“But whether there is a difference or not in the level or quality of sexual sensation, circumcision does not interfere with or destroy the male sexual function or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. THAT IS THE VERY POINT OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. That’s a huge difference.”
I was the victim of a poorly done circumcision at birth. My mom wanted me to be circumcised but the Dr. didn’t get it right so I ended up with a foreskin that would tear and heal . Eventually had to get surgery to fix the problem at 31 years of age. Not an uncommon occurence from what I hear. Sex is great before and after the 31 one years of age bench mark. Wesley is quite correct in noting this operation on a man is not over sexual gratification but it is wrong for soceity to destroy the sexual pleasure for a woman. People enforcing such mutilation of woman do so in order make woman nothing more then a vessel for making babies. The difference is very huge indeed.
May 16th, 2010 | 3:04 pm
If the accepted reasons for male circumcision were applied to female bodies- I think it would quickly be clear that these ideas are not as empowering or sexually liberated as the author would like to believe. Let’s put aside the alleged (bad) motives of those who circumcise females… and hypothetically apply the “positive” reasons our culture accepts for male circumcision which results in “no functional harm to males” to the bodies of baby girls and see how good it sounds. Let’s pretend we aren’t talking about infibulation and cutting of clitorises… let’s pretend we could just take off all that extra skin and expose any moist mucosal areas to the air so her fully functioning genitals would be dry and tight…nothing to damage the sexy important parts… just a little housekeeping.
“Babygirl Circumcision is more hygienic. By removing all the “extra skin” you don’t have to worry about having to pull it back and clean in there and worry about all the infections caused by the bacteria trapped in all that extra skin. A woman should not have any folds or creases down there- it serves no purpose than to harbor filth! Smegma is gross- we are doing her a favor, her boyfriends will thank us… who would want to go down on a uncircumcised girl? She will be made fun of by all her circumcised peers, she should be cut so she fits in… and her mother is circumcised- how would her mother show her how to use the toilet or clean herself? – It would be confusing to her in forming her female identity if she does not look like her mother.
Babygirl circumcision is more beautiful- I have never even seen an uncircumcised woman… and I’ve never heard a circumcised woman complain… it does not harm any part of her sexual function- she can still have orgasms and have babies… we just cut away all the extra skin so her clitoris is always exposed- her little pink clitoris looks nice sticking out like that surrounded by smooth tight skin, just like her mother! Her mother loves sex- how can you say that she is sexually damaged?… Why if she enjoyed sex any more than she does- I’d never be able to satisfy her!
I used to work in a nursing home. Trust me when I tell you what happens to old women is disgusting if they are not able to take care of themselves- it’s just horrible. Do your daughter a favor and cut her at birth- she and her future husband will thank you! What if she gets infections and has to be circumcised later… when she can remember it? Do it when she is a baby!- parents have to make decisions on their child’s behalf all the time.”
A goal of sexually enhancing surgery is just as immoral and imposition of the body of a newborn child as a surgery intent to diminish sexuality. Children should be protected from sexual cutting regardless of the motivations driving the parents belief that this is the best for their child’s future well being. The claim that circumcision does not change male sexual function can only be made if circumcised sexual function is regarded as the baseline norm.
The case against female circumcision does not depend on the false assertion that male circumcision does no harm or that the goals of parents who circumcise females are based in cruelty and subjugation. Those parents love their children as much and desire the best for them, just as parents who circumcise males do. Wake up and stop with the sexist double standard!
May 16th, 2010 | 4:48 pm
A little historical context may be helpful. In the US, JH Kellogg and others advocate male circumcision and female gential mutilation to reduce sexual pleasure of the children. Kellog went so far as to advocate circumcising a young boy without anesthesia so that the boy would remember the pain. Contrary to what others have posted, male circumcision was introduced in the US for sexual repression of men.
There are numerous studies that show that sexual satisfaction and pleasure is reduced by male circumcision. But, the US culture is strongly tied to male circumcision and such studies fall on deaf ears. But, some men listen. Some men, like me, are restoring their foreskin and finding that it is possible to regain much of what was taken from us. There is a big difference between being circumcised and having a foreskin.
All children, male and female, should be able to enjoy their whole sex organ. Americans must get rid of the gender inequality when it comes to altering the genitalia of children.
May 16th, 2010 | 5:09 pm
It is fair to say, then, that the two differ in degree, if not type. You don’t need to believe that the two are exactly the same in order to see that both are a problem.
May 16th, 2010 | 6:00 pm
@Wesley J Smith: “But whether there is a difference or not in the level or quality of sexual sensation, circumcision does not interfere with or destroy the male sexual function or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure.”
Sometimes it does destroy them. But since the foreskin contains about 20,000 nerves, specialised for fine touch, like those of the fingertips or lips, you might equally say that cutting the lips off would not interfere with or destroy the ability to enjoy kissing. (And you’d be equally wrong.)
“THAT IS THE VERY POINT OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. That’s a huge difference.”
That is clearly not the very point of the proposed ritual nick. (I suspect one point of the proposed nick is to narrow the yawning gap between the AAP’s male and female genital cutting policies.)
The chair of the Bioethics Committee is on record as saying “A surgical procedure should not be performed solely because a parent requests it. … …[P]roviders have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. … The pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent.”
This seems to be ignored when considering both male and female genital cutting.
May 17th, 2010 | 4:52 am
Wesley: “THE PURPOSE of female genital mutilation–EVEN THE “SYMBOLIC” NICK–IS SUBJUGATION OF WOMEN. The exact opposite is true of circumcision, particularly given that religions/cultures that practice it give men the first chair.”
that’s incorrect, i’m sorry Wesley. ‘men’ may be in the ascendant in an abstract sense, but as any male knows, there is a competitive hierarchy of masculinity. patriarchy is not a flat management structure.
the symbolic initiation into the patriarchal system is not one of universal liberty and self determination, it is a mean, jealous, life denying induction into a rigid system of rules, codes and petty authoritarianism.
and male circumcision fits perfectly within that system because it is integral with it’s origins. so don’t try and tell me now that circumcision is sex positive. it isn’t, it is all about destroying the female aspect of the male psyche by destroying the apparently female part of his genital, the soft, fleshy, wet, occasionally smelly, SENSITIVE foreskin.
May 17th, 2010 | 8:43 am
I wonder why the anti-male circumcision zealots don’t respond to Donnie McCloud’s comment? Maybe because it puts the lie to the assertion that male circumcision diminishes enjoyment of sex.
My dad was uncircumcised and often bemoaned it. He made sure me and my brother were so we would not face the difficulties he did touching hygene in that area. I have four children and have enjoyed normal sex in every respect. I regard the idea that circumcision diminishes a man’s enjoyment of sex as no more than an urban myth.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Anthony: The obsession with the foreskin is remarkable, but they also did not respond to the point of female genital mutilation as a method of oppressing and controlling females, which circumcision definitely is not.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:11 am
Mutilation is a no-no. The whole “pleasure” aspect of this is really incidental.
Pediatricians shouldn’t be advocating mutilation of any kind, period.
May 17th, 2010 | 12:53 pm
Anthony Christian: ===I wonder why the anti-male circumcision zealots don’t respond to Donnie McCloud’s comment?===
‘zealots’ is ad hominem, Anthony. not atypical of you knife happy, baby mutilating psychos, but poor form all the same. and the reason i didn’t respond is, well, why? the anecdotal report of a single individual that flies in the face of reason isn’t about to undermine my informed opinion, any more than the accident free record of a single drunk driver gives me an excuse to do likewise.
===Maybe because it puts the lie to the assertion that male circumcision diminishes enjoyment of sex.===
as Terri said, this is really a red herring.
===My dad was uncircumcised===
so you won’t be trotting out the “so he looks like his dad” nonsense. good.
Wesley J. Smith: ===The obsession with the foreskin is remarkable===
indeed it is. why demonise something so arbitrary? could it be about the uncomfortable nexus of sex, pleasure and childhood? let’s look at that question why don’t we.
===they also did not respond to the point of female genital mutilation as a method of oppressing and controlling females, which circumcision definitely is not===
actually, one of ‘them’ thought he had. perhaps it will help to remind you that Old Testament kings circumcised vanquished foes by force, collected foreskins as war trophies and circumcised slaves as a mark of ownership. and please don’t try and paint me as an antisemite. there is a movement against circumcision within Judaism, and besides, the Jewish faith condemns performing circumcision for earthly reasons, such as those you are proposing.
genital mutilation as a tradition commonly occurs in association with either sex, and the ethical problems with it are gender neutral. unlike you, i’m prepared to show some tolerance toward people with strongly held religious and cultural traditions of genital cutting, but what i am not prepared to accept is the technocratic arrogance of those who advocate performing this pointless and barbaric amputation on babies and children in the belief that it is medicinal.
the history of medicalized circumcision in the west reveals beyond doubt that it is the anachronistic remnant of 19th century social hygeine ideology. there is a clear mandate for “anti circumcision zealots” to question the ethics of this practice and, given the height of the bar that the baby mutilating psychos need to reach to justify performing this procedure on children, nothing they have said here or elsewhere has ever made a blind bit of sense.
and thankyou Sarah, that’s a great and sustained analogy. ===By removing all the “extra skin” you don’t have to worry about having to pull it back and clean in there and worry about all the infections caused by the bacteria trapped in all that extra skin.=== you got it exactly right!
and Restoring Tally: ===Now they want to make money cutting girls.=== it hadn’t occurred to me, but it’s a definite possibility…
May 17th, 2010 | 2:13 pm
“‘zealots’ is ad hominem, Anthony. not atypical of you knife happy, baby mutilating psychos, but poor form all the same.”
Uh, wow. There’s something about circumcision and legalized marijuana that seems to bring out the strange on this blog.
May 17th, 2010 | 2:53 pm
Perhaps Wesley and Anthony would care to tell us how this figures into CCC 2297?
May 17th, 2010 | 4:15 pm
Please open your Bible and read chapter 17 of Genesis. It is the Jewish people who started this not the Americans. It is really sad to look at all of the complaining here about a little bit of skin; and I can bet that most of you think that killing an innocent baby is alright.
May 17th, 2010 | 8:21 pm
Galatians 5:6 “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity”
Philippians 3:3 “For we are the circumcision, who in spirit serve God; and glory in Christ Jesus, not having confidence in the flesh.”
Prolife Mommy – You are totally off-base with your comment. You’ve jumped to several conclusions, the first being the assumption that if one believes that not only females but males deserve bodily integrity, that person doesn’t read the Bible and needs to be instructed to do so. Another conclusion not based in fact is that the Jewish people during the time of Genesis started circumcison, this is not based upon historical fact. Then the third conclusion, upon which you are willing to gamble, is that if one does not believe in male circumcison and is willing to stand up for those boys, then that person probably isn’t pro-life. I’d say that those are fairly long odds and I wouldn’t take that bet!
Truly, I have no idea how you might conclude that people who believe bodies should be left intact would mean someone is not pro-life. This is a completely illogical conclusion. In fact, I’m so pro-life, I’m appalled that every year in the U.S., 117 little boys die as a direct result of circumcision – a completely elective surgery. As this is the reported number it is highly likely that, as in most medical mishaps, the actual cases of death are higher.
While you may find it sad that we are “complaining about a little bit of skin.” I find since there is no valid medical reason for male circumcison, we should all find it worth discussing. The circumcision as done by the ancient Jews was different procedure from the what is done by modern day American doctors. I am also fairly sure that you understand that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and Christians longer longer adhere to the Mosaic law. Here is a quote form Pope Eugene IV, “….Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] Sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”
Also CCC (The Catechism of the Catholic Church) 2297: “……Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”
To be clear, amputation is the total or partial removal of a body part encased in skin. Therapeutic means ‘of or relating to the treatment of disease.’ It doesn’t say, we can amputate body parts for preventative measures. What disease are we treating when we remove foreskin?
It would have been nice for this conversation to have some level of civility. However, you may have noticed that those of us who respectfully brought up the issue of male circumcision have been labeled as zealots and obsessed with foreskin. Just as it is reasonable to strongly advocate for the unborn, the disabled, the brain-injured, the health compromised; it is reasonable, after researching this issue and discovering so many troubling medical facts, that there are strong feelings about what is undeniably a brutal procedure. and to strongly advocate for those who can not advocate for themselves!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 18th, 2010 at 12:59 am
OK. Thanks. Let’s stop talking about male circumcision. The post is about female and the slouching toward relativism by the medical group.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:53 pm
Sooooo anyway, back to the issue of FGC and the AAP document, I agree with yo, Wesley, that there is a kind of cowardly wiggling around here that can be a backhanded way of encouraging them to somehow “bless” the practice of genital cutting.
The document in its entirety is a very good examination of the complexity of this problem, and it advocates — up until the very last paragraph, which you quote above — education by the doctor, discouragement by the doc, and even a reminder that it is an illegal practice that is considered child abuse.
If there is anyone to “reach out to” the communities that engage in such practices in an attempt to try to keep it from being an underground, secretive and often unhygenically performed procedure, I do NOT think it should be doctors.
May 18th, 2010 | 8:45 am
Ahh, words. The stock in trade of the propagandist. In Wesley-World we “slouch toward relativism…” but somehow we never “slouch” toward absolutism or censorship. In other words, people “slouch” toward philosophies with which Wesley disagrees, but march with shoulders erect and heads held high, noble purpose radiating from their faces, towards those “ideals” he favors.
The “slouch” adverb has already been used, and by none other than Robert Bork (in his case “slouching toward Gomorrah”). I suppose Wesley meant to honor that quixotic loser by borrowing it.
May 18th, 2010 | 12:38 pm
HW, would you like to argue with Wesley’s position specifically, or just attack the fact that he holds one?
May 18th, 2010 | 2:20 pm
Wesley,
On the very narrow question of your use of “slouching towards relativism . . .”, History Writer has a valid point, although it is hard to see given all of the ad hominem nonsense with which s/he surrounds it. Metaphoric images are tricky things, and you cannot always control the argument. I have not read all of the posts here, but can you at least try to address the comparisons of male/female . . . whatever (stumped for the choice of a “neutral” verb that would not incite controversy)? Since, as you say, you knew male circumcision would likely come up, could you not have prepared some sort of assessment of these practices. At least then you would have addressed it, and if others persist, you can move on, even if they won’t.
I have to admit that in my response to another of your recent posts, I linked together two issues that you would probably have preferred to keep separate.
And, by coincidence, that was also in response to a comment by History Writer, providing a nice segue opportunity.
History Writer,
Since “words” are the tools used by anyone who tries to express anything, they are, in a sense, everyone’s “stock in trade”. I invite you to explore for yourself the paradox of using no words to express yourself in writing. Sort of a zen exercise.
And Robert Bork was far from the first, or the last, person to quote from W.B. Yeat’s “The Second Coming”. For crying out loud.
May 18th, 2010 | 5:49 pm
Peter S.
I see your point about the zen exercise. Perhaps I would have expressed it better by criticizing Smith’s CHOICE of words. He is, after all, a very skilled propagandist (in case you hadn’t noticed).
May 21st, 2010 | 3:09 am
[...] Tegenstanders willen dat de AAP het beleidsadvies terugdraait. Zo is er een petitie tegen vrouwenbesnijdenis, en veroordelen actiegroepen de AAP in een reactie voor het advies. Sommige bloggers zijn furieus. [...]
May 21st, 2010 | 8:30 am
[...] Tegenstanders willen dat de AAP het beleidsadvies terugdraait. Zo is er een petitie tegen vrouwenbesnijdenis, en veroordelen actiegroepen de AAP in een reactie voor het advies.Sommige bloggers zijn furieus. [...]
May 21st, 2010 | 12:23 pm
Anybody here speak Dutch and would care to translate??
June 7th, 2010 | 11:03 am
[...] news. After making a symbolic nod to female genital mutilation–originally discussed here at SHS–and being rightfully blistered for the appeasement of oppression, the American Academy of [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact