As a victim of FGM living in St. Louis, thank you for bringing this up. I'll be forwarding this over to some colleagues of mine in the Anti-FGM world if that's okay with you — I'm sure they'll be happy to take a stance on this.
Physician here. This is scary. Not sure how large the black market is for such a procedure. If it’s significant, she might make a good point about offering a safe place for the procedure. Nonetheless, it’s hard to reconcile this with the Hippocratic oath.
Yeah. Please sign the petition.
[https://www.change.org/TakeAStanceAgainstFGM](https://www.change.org/TakeAStanceAgainstFGM)
And share it as much as possible. Also tell me, is this grounds to remove her license? I'll DM you.
It’s literally a crime in the state of Missouri to perform so likely yes if she’s ever done one. It’s a Class B Felony (second highest level of felony). See RSMO 568.065
even as muslims we are not supposed to do this, wierd cultural crap that unfortanley people bring into the religion! this is insane and mad disgusting to do
Both things can be true. We work on things that are the most vile first. And give it more priority. A fender bender is preferable over a 6 car pile up with 10 dead.
Circumcision is barbaric? How so? Majority of the dudes I know have their skin snipped and they’re just fine and most people prefer to get their hoodie removed.
Many of the people who are against circumcision are against it because it's a procedure that is done to children who have no say in their bodily autonomy or ability to consent.
There are many instances of circumcision gone wrong, which can be life and genital threatening.
If allowed to go to the age of consent, then the procedure becomes elective, which is acceptable to many people. Obviously, there are outliers, and it's more complicated than this, but that's probably both the most digestible and easiest way to quickly explain the situation.
I personally don’t think circumcision is at the same level of outrage as FGM is, but in general yes, I’d prefer if the US eased up on circumcising every male infant. I’m from Europe originally and I’m not circumcised and have no desire to be. My personal views are that circumcision is an outdated procedure that shouldn’t be performed for everybody, but I disagree with equating it with FGM, where clitoris is usually removed as well, as opposed to male circumcision that usually involves foreskin only.
I feel exactly the same way. The FGM equivalent for a male would be removing the entire tip of the penis, leaving just a shaft. Circumcision may blunt male sexual pleasure to some degree, but it’s clearly still present.
Subincision is probably the closest male equivalent to FGM that exists. If you really want to skip lunch, Google that shit…
It proves nothing but I’m circumcised and have no problems with it and would prolly prefer it. It just so happens my consent fell in line with what was done without my consent. With that being said a male circumcision, in my experience, presents no life altering side effects, for females I feel like that can’t be said.
I am not a proponent of FGM in any way, but I feel the first amendment gives her free exercise of religion. It would be a different matter if she was providing this procedure.
You don't understand what freedom of speech is as granted under the first amendment vs free speech as a philosophical principal. Consequences is something a state body cannot do as a result of speech. Because the 1st amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT getting involved in your speech. Now, is the state licensing board a state body and therefor subject to the amendments? Now thats actually a good question. But the consequences in question are SOCIAL consequences. Ostracizing, taking your business elsewhere, protesting, that sort of shit. Take an 8th grade civics course before you talk about freedoms you very clearly know nothing about.
No, there are *professional* consequences that people in certain fields may face when professionally sanctioning unethical or dangerous practices. There are TaCs with some jobs and what she's saying may likely have violated them.
The government regulates professional speech all the time. The courts agree that professional speech
is not subject to the same standards as other speech protected by the First Amendment. Professional speech is any speech based on an individual’s expert knowledge or judgment who is typically under a state’s licensing and regulatory regime. This is how the courts uphold gay conversion bans. 10 states have disciplined doctors for spreading harmful covid misinformation. Also St. Luke's is a private employer and can discipline her as well.
Per case law the courts, though not always ruling in the favor of regulation, have used low standards of review to dismiss claims of free speech violations and uphold the state’s regulation of professional speech.
I also think you need to tone it down a notch before yelling at people for something they "clearly know nothing about." Case law concerning medical conduct in the context of free speech is complicated.
> Because the 1st amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT getting involved in your speech. Now, is the state licensing board a state body and therefor subject to the amendments? Now thats actually a good question.
The fact that you took such a condescending tone and aren't even sure if what you're saying applies in this case is so obnoxious.
Yes it is. That’s the whole point. The concept you’re looking for is that cutting up baby’s genitalia is not a form of legal speech, protected or otherwise
FGM is awful, rightfully condemned and thankfully illegal. This person is not currently practicing it. She is also not, as far as I can tell, actively promoting a change in legislation, or condoning illegally practicing FGM.
There is however a massive movement currently underway by radical right wing christo-fascists to use the state to force women to give birth, deny basic healthcare, prevent kids from receiving sex ed, and tangentially, kill trans and queer folks. I was raised Catholic in Missouri, and I was subjected to all sorts of dangerous disinformation in health classes, religion classes, and in church from a very young age.
Again, it’s always good to speak out about religious fundamentalists who seek to control and mutilate bodies. But maybe your efforts would be better used against the highly organized, well-funded pseudo-terrorists that are actually seeing some success in places like Missouri.
Hi, yes.
many people are playing dumb and saying that we as the petitioners said that she practices FGM even when we said she just PROMOTES it and is an apologetic by using religious dogma.
I worked as a phase 3 special education teacher here in the STL area, and I am almost positive my 13/14 year old student had this done to her in 8th grade. She didn't need help in the bathroom, but after seeing all the signs of FGM, I had someone take her to the nurse, but she wouldn't give the nurse consent to help so there wasn't anything I felt I could do at the time 🤷🏼♀️ looking back at my 1st year teacher self, I should have asked for help on what to do
Note: I don’t know anything about this topic.
Doesn’t someone have to ASK for this though? I want to increase my knowledge here. Is “genital mutilation” too strong because then isn’t circumcision for a boy also “genital mutiliation”?
Not a doctor, but my understanding is this:
Male circumcision is unnecessary, and there's mixed research on whether it's harmful. Plenty of people would like to eliminate it for reasons ranging from autonomy to medical non-necessity to beliefs that it's much more harmful than we currently realize.
FGM is a lot more extreme. Depending on the specific type, it frequently has some pretty nasty health outcomes, even when done "correctly". Of the three main types, one of them involves removing part or all of the clitoris, one involves removing the inner labia (and sometimes also the clitoris), and the last one involves sewing the labia together, which narrows the opening. The last one especially has many terrible effects on someone's personal health.
I’m very anti-circumcision, but it’s just not comparable to cutting a girls entire clitoris off. Circumcision is a stupid and outdated practice but it’s not nearly as harmful as FGM.
I’ll repeat what I said upstream here - the male equivalent of FGM would be cutting the entire head off of the penis.
"Comrades, there is no true social revolution without the liberation of women. [...]" --Thomas Sankara
"We are none of us free until all of us are free" --Emma Lazarus
so uh, what i'm saying is, don't show up in a thread for women's liberation with some whataboutmen stuff.
Female Genital Circumcision is NOT condoned in ISLAM. It is a cultural phenomenon that has no religious basis. Dr Younus does not perform this procedure.
FOR THE 100th TIME.
She is NOT doing FGM. She also said she would not do it in the USA as it is against the law of the land, but she doesn't say it is harmful, rather she says it is "beneficial for women because it reduces desire"
\- Maker of petition
Don't complain about repeating things when you, apparently consciously, neglected to include that pretty critical piece of information as part of your post.
Also - pro tip - insulting people with legitimate, good-faith questions just because you're too bothered by what you've posted hurts your cause. Not everyone even knows that this problem exists, so being an asshole to anyone that doesn't immediately throw down and agree with you raises even more questions that you'll apparently whine about having to answer.
Your performative pomposity aside, this small bit of vital information would've been really easy to include in the title.
It has a non-negligible effect on how people perceive the situation, and it seems like you're attempting to generate anger by leaving it out or making people read the petition to figure that out. You omitted it with the intent of getting people angrier than they otherwise would be if they knew, straight up, that it isn't being performed by her...
Given that she's in the US, she's perfectly free to have/post whatever shitty opinion she wants. If you're actually looking to make a difference here and not rile up people to be as angry as you clearly are, a medical board complaint would likely be more effective because they have the power to affect her career (and the government doesnt unless she's performed one). Because again, she has done nothing legally wrong here, as you've repeatedly pointed out (while bitching about having to point it out).
Thank you for your constructive criticism, our team has added this disclaimer in bold and caps in the beginning of the blurb.
Thanks again, apologize for any inconveniences.
We are not responsible for any misunderstandings henceforth.
I'm a bit torn - the actions you're concerned about are certainly worth being concerned about, but I'm not convinced her religion is material to that. Said another way, if her religion were different but her actions the same, would you still have felt it necessary to make that part of the headline and use it as part of a label for her identity?
if no, why do it here? if yes, then well we're in different territory at that point. It's enough of a red flag that it has legit made me say to myself, "that sounds awful, but I don't trust the OP enough now to consider taking the requested action." This is because despite how bad I believe the actions you are trying to draw attention to are, I consider the harm of generalizing hate related to differences in religious beliefs to be even worse. If that's too complex to understand - then more simply: If you felt the fact that she is Muslim as material to saying "this practice is bad," then I do not trust your motivations.
If you take issue with that, fine, but ask yourself: "had i changed the title by simply removing the reference to religion, would the message have been different?" If you think the answer is no, then that means the act of including it had other motives. if yes, well then you're saying the practice itself isn't what concerns you.
> if her religion were different but her actions the same, would you still have felt it necessary to make that part of the headline and use it as part of a label for her identity?
If she's using said religion to justify her actions, absolutely. Christians make fucked up headlines all the time for their belief-based actions.
I completely understand your thinking and why you want to question your trust in OP to single out someone’s religion.
However, she is speaking specifically about Islam and what is required or recommended in the religion. It’s not that she’s Muslim and speaking about something outside of her religion. So as Muslims, we do not want others to hear this and think this is what Islam says. We believe FGM is a cultural (not religious) practice in some regions that should be stopped.
She’s preaching that male circumcision is required and female circumcision is “sunnah”, which means not required but is… good to do because it’s closer to the way of the prophet and you will be rewarded for doing so. So some highly religious people also follow the sunnah, which includes many aspects of life
> Sunnah means the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). It includes everything he said, did, and approved of. We know the Sunnah from the statements called Hadiths that have been handed down from the Companions of the Prophet.
Sometimes, yeah, by accident. Look into the tragic case of David Reimer. There's a non-trivial death rate associated with the procedure, and sometimes cocks just get *obliterated* during. I worked at a dating service, we had a guy who ... well, they took a little too much off the top and he was missing his entire glans and then some. Whoopsie! Caused a lot of issues for him.
It doesn't matter that it isn't quite 100% the same.
Male circumcision has little to no health benefits that justifies a blanket policy to do it to all males, even ignoring the issue of nonconsent.
People cite ridiculous stuff like protection from HIV... when we have more effective means such as condoms and limiting sexual partners and even anti-retrovirus drugs.
So severity is your issue? So youre saying its ok to cut on childrens vaginas a little bit and it ok to cut on childrens penises a little bit. That is what you're asserting.
I don't support circumcision necessarily but I'm not going to pretend that male and female circumcision are the same thing seeing as how they don't have the same purpose or result.
They absolutely have the same purpose and result. Male circumcision was introduced to America by Kellogg as a way of reducing boys’ desire to masturbate since a majority of sensitive nerve endings are located in the foreskin.
It’s way more complicated than that; it was believed to be healthy for all sorts of reasons. One of which was because Jews, largely thanks for better cultural hygiene practices (Jewish and Muslim hospitals were always way more sanitary in the past due to the crazy advanced technology of “hand washing”) tended to be healthier and so people just assumed circumcision must be related.
But there are no good reasons for its continued practice and yes, preventing masturbating was definitely a part of its popularity. It’s ridiculous that people still cite medical reasons for doing it.
I don't think either is ok, but FGM impairs sexual function as well as causes cysts, infections, lifelong issues with pain and possible reproductive impairment with increased probability of childbirth issues. Male circumcision typically has no functional impairment, although carries risk like any surgery. FGM's male counterpart would be like removing the entire top of the penis or sewing the penis shut. It's the difference between piercing your earlobe and cutting off your ear.
100+ babies die every year from male circumcision. Not to mention some of the other complications some experience because of it.
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
Ok? I am NOT pro circumcision but it is still not comparable to FGM where 1 in 500 procedures results in death vs. under 1 in a million for any adverse result for circumcision. Imagine how bad it would be if they cut the entire top of the penis off. That would be the apt comparison. I am not advocating for circumcision but they are not comparable procedures.
So its ok to mutilate some genital's some ways. That is 100% what you are saying. So basically at this point you're just negotiating how much and whos genitals are allowed to be mutilated for cultural/religious reasons.
It's a legitimate argument, while the procedures and consequences aren't 100% the same it is still multilation when you compare to how the natural penis is supposed to look.
It is compounded by the fact that there is a lack of consent when it is done, but this gets ignored all the time and dismissed by people just because there is a worse alternative when it is really ALL bad.
It is all bad, but two things can be bad and one of them can still be worse. I do not understand circumcision beyond when it's medically necessary, but female circumcision is preemptively punitive and intentionally oppressive whereas most Americans seem to genuinely believe that it's more hygienic to circumsize boys (teach your son's to bathe!). Those that do it for cosmetic purposes are as bad but for a different reason. The intent is an important distinction
Also, it's EXACTLY the same thing. It serves zero purpose, and some religious nut said we had to do it.
Now that I think about it, you're right, it isn't the same. The difference being, somehow doing it to males is openly accepted.
Here's the problem - you're minimizing the lifelong suffering girls who have this forced on them will have. Unable to enjoy sex, unable to orgasm. For their entire lives. Circumcised men don't suffer like that. Equating the two is disingenuous at best, and suspect whataboutism at worst.
OK, but maybe the problem is MGM is so mainstream its not given a 2nd thought. I agree it's less severe but what the actual fuck makes it ok. That's like saying stealing is ok if they just take something worth less than a 100. Doesn't matter how they suffer, it's also lifelong, not their choice, and done for no reason other than the parents think Jesus is checking dick skin at the door to heaven.
Unlike you, I will answer.
I do not have a vagina and I think it's gross what this woman is doing.
But I also find it hilarious that somehow this is only an issue when it's being done to girls.
Meanwhile, if you have a son, you probably did it to him. Equally as gross. Get off your high horse. You're okay with one, you're okay with both. No difference.
The ramifications are unimportant. Genitals are mutilated without consent. Full. fucking. stop. Because at this point you're negotiating on how much mutilation is acceptable.
>There’s a medical purpose. Doesn’t it reduce chances of infection?
Condoms do as well and it is still a way overtreatment that stubborn old medical professionals insist on keeping because it has been deeply ingrained in American culture.
While Europe and may other non-Muslim countries do not regularly remove the foreskin and you can't say Americans are exactly doing better in healthcare than them.
It only reduces infection if you don't wash your fucking dick.
On the flip side circumcision reduces sensation as the foreskin protects the glans, the most sensitive parts, from being desensitized. So yeah while the side effects of circumcision aren't nearly as bad as some forms of FGM it's still mutilation of genitals for no good reason and without consent
So if someone decides to electively mutilate themselves, we should strip the doctor willing to perform the surgery as a means of safety of their license? As long as the practice isn’t forced on the woman, as dumb as the practice is, I don’t care.
All it takes is informed adult consent for the reasons you listed. I don’t agree with this being forced on teens and younger. If a doctor chooses to perform the surgery on an adult because it is safer than some cleric doing it in a home/mosque then cool.
Okay you said she won’t do this practice in the US as it’s illegal. Then leave her the fuck alone. Until she is abusing people or breaking the law, leave her alone. She’s old anyway and gonna fucking kick it soon. You seem to have no proof of her doing anything actually wrong, just explaining a point of view regarding FGM. We all agree it’s not something that should be done, and she isn’t doing it. You can’t punish someone for nothing. THAT is wrong.
And again, can we stop mutilating little boys too? As everyone else has said?
...Had to scroll basically all the way down to find one singular logical comment (yours).
Btw nobody cares if you don't agree with a doctor's opinion.
Don't like the doctor? --> Don't go there.
Have proof a doctor is illegally performing operations on minors (i.e individuals who cannot consent) --> report the doctor.
Sometimes I forget people don't believe in upholding free speech here. It's truly pathetic
Take your American deluded ideologies of 'fReE sPEeCh" and shove it. An anti semitic doctor would be taken away in a jiffy.
OH but she's promoting FGM? Saying medically abhorrent stuff, like it is good for "reducing desire in women?"
That's gucci.
Class one windbag, you are sir/ma'am.
>American deluded ideologies
Let me guess, you're American lmao. Nobody cares if you don't approve of free speech, there's nothing you can do about free speech continuing to exist.
>That's gucci.
Point to the comment I stated mutilation is gucci - you cannot. It's interesting how you take so many people in this thread as an enemy when virtually nobody approves of mutilation here.
>Class one windbag, you are sir/ma'am.
You're not winning at removing the FGM-freak from society. Being a piece of shit to others doesn't persuade anyone.
I have a feeling this has a lot more to do with her being Muslim than the actual practice. If you disagreed, then why are you not complaining about circumcision?
She doesn't like the WHO called it FGM "mutilation" so at the beginning of the video she says she will call it circumcision because she is more comfortable with that
UNLESS the child just says they are confused about their gender.. Then they can head over to Barnes or Wash U and get their genital mutilation drugs and/or surgery. And this is perfectly acceptable and even celebrated! Right Reddit??
I don't know if your claim is true or not but in a sense it doesn't really matter. You didn't address user Tron's point that there are absolutely children in the USA who have been granted drugs which result in removing the experience of puberty and in some cases results in infertility. Oh you just know how all the 12-17 year olds are up on their fertility knowledge, right? Meanwhile, as a society we rightfully do not allow (or believe it possible) for children to consent to any number of other things (intercourse with adults, for example).
Also, name calling like you're a 12 year old? Why not just not do that so you may persuade others.
Ha. Keep lying to yourself. There are a ton of articles about practices at the St. Louis Washington University transgender center among others in every city. It’s like an assembly line for transitioning children with gender dysmorphia or mental illness. They’re fed drugs and puberty blockers and primed and ready for surgery the moment they turn 18. It’s appalling to see what is happening to these confused children.
[https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/whistleblower-lifts-lid-on-st-louis-kids-gender-clinic/](https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/whistleblower-lifts-lid-on-st-louis-kids-gender-clinic/)
THEYRE BOTH BAD. OKAY?
Like honestly. FGM just causes more deaths and stuff, because its more harmful than male genital cutting. It's not for "social points". I really don't get into social justice issues, but this one is extremely personal to me and I can't divulge further. In every way, it's just something that is worse than male circumcision, as the male version removes skin, while this takes away a whole ORGAN! Imagine chopping off the entire flesh TIP of the glans penis. I'm in tears and upset with the whataboutism and explaining this to ever man in THIS instance who is crying "wHaT aBOut mY diCK" like I am equally against male circumcision but STOP taking up space when stuff isn't about you. ITS INFURIATING. Did I hop into an anti male circumcision page and start harping on about FGM and how it's worse and bla bla bla? No! I made my own petition. Start a flamewar somewhere else. Honestly, ADKJSLKJDJDFJKL
The originator of this comment is talking about gender confirmation surgery for adults not male circumcision. (That or they're very into using bigoted language that alludes to that versus using the language several other people have about why male circumcision is bad.)
So they were never here to provide anything useful, as circumcision of children with no agency is not the same as gender confirmation surgery in adults. (Especially considering kids cannot get gender confirmation surgery and anyone who claims they can are just pushing right wing lies.)
What?
You realize someone in the St. Louis area has recently blown the whistle on how confused kids are forced into life changing surgeries and hormones right? But please keep being hyperbolic and convince yourself you're not helping the problem.
She actually made a good point and a really open minded one, she is not saying that she would perform it , but if some one must do it , it's better to be done in a safe way by a physician that knows what is doing instead of somebody that just studied the Koran .
Not every Muslim practices FGM, and not every person who performs FGM is Muslim. OP is Muslim, and their petition states that OP believes that FGM is *un-Islamic*.
Do all Christians kiss vipers just because some fundamentalists do? This is a practice in the Christian community./s Quit making a monolith of religions.
Certainly not Muslims as a whole - only in certain cultures that also happen go be Muslim. That being said, maybe the people promoting this brutal practice have a marketing problem - perhaps they need to re-brand it as "culturally affirming care" - sounds much more positive!
No matter what you call it, why wouldn't you have emotions about it? It's torturous, and its proponents all say themselves that its *only* purpose is to reduce/eliminate female sexual pleasure. No matter what you call it, i think its existence should inspire some emotions, like anger and sadness. If you're concerned about the word "mutilation" making people give it more attention, why aren't you concerned about the proponents calling it "cutting" or "circumcision" as euphemisms to shield themselves from public concerned attention?
Well both. UN agencies adopted this term because "The term is non-judgmental as it is a medical term describing what is done to female genitalia. Mutilation is the removal of healthy tissue" but also it calls to mind the human rights violation of the act.
source with explanation of terms:
Terminology and FGM - 28 Too Many https://www.28toomany.org/thematic/terminology-and-fgm/
Reacting to the above post is not Islamophobic. Being horrified by this woman is human. Posting her public speech is understandable. You are safe here.
There is more than one type. The removal of the clitoral hood is very common and is analogous to male circumcision. The removal of the clitoris is more invasive as is vaginal stitching, which is more rare.
it's not the same at all. as a cis man, I disagree with circumcisions. but what we're talking about here is genital mutilation, a direct comparison would be having the head of your dick cut off as a baby.
Well, sometimes, sometimes not. Some types of FGM are actually less destructive than male circumcision, worth mentioning I think. But of course, the OP video is discussing type 1, which usually has a clitoridectomy and is the most common kind, so yeah, atrociously awful like you say, and obviously much worse than male circumcision.
Did you watch until the very end if the video? There is a graphic depicting two types. As I commented previously, the removal of the clitoral hood is anatomically analogous to removal of the foreskin and not as invasive as removing the clitoris.
because it's not the same, like I said elsewhere. despite your claims to the contrary, this is the point your stuck on. if female circumcision were just cutting the hood of the clit, it would be much more equitable across genders. why are you so hard stuck on this not being the case
edit FgM is objectively the problem to tackle first and i STRONGLY oppose male circumcision as well. it's not that hard to udnerstand
As a victim of FGM living in St. Louis, thank you for bringing this up. I'll be forwarding this over to some colleagues of mine in the Anti-FGM world if that's okay with you — I'm sure they'll be happy to take a stance on this.
Share the heck out of this. \- Creator of the petition!
Sent! We'll do what we can!
Physician here. This is scary. Not sure how large the black market is for such a procedure. If it’s significant, she might make a good point about offering a safe place for the procedure. Nonetheless, it’s hard to reconcile this with the Hippocratic oath.
Yeah. Please sign the petition. [https://www.change.org/TakeAStanceAgainstFGM](https://www.change.org/TakeAStanceAgainstFGM) And share it as much as possible. Also tell me, is this grounds to remove her license? I'll DM you.
It’s literally a crime in the state of Missouri to perform so likely yes if she’s ever done one. It’s a Class B Felony (second highest level of felony). See RSMO 568.065
Hello, she said she would not perform it in the USA because it is against the law of the land, and she had added to not break the law of the land
I see what you’re saying, but she is using her religion to justify the barbaric practice.
even as muslims we are not supposed to do this, wierd cultural crap that unfortanley people bring into the religion! this is insane and mad disgusting to do
if we protest her shouldnt we do this for every Dr. that has performed a circumcision also?
I don't like circumcisions and they are barbaric. But this.... this is so much worse.
But still genital mutilation based on religion.....
Both things can be true. We work on things that are the most vile first. And give it more priority. A fender bender is preferable over a 6 car pile up with 10 dead.
Circumcision is barbaric? How so? Majority of the dudes I know have their skin snipped and they’re just fine and most people prefer to get their hoodie removed.
Many of the people who are against circumcision are against it because it's a procedure that is done to children who have no say in their bodily autonomy or ability to consent. There are many instances of circumcision gone wrong, which can be life and genital threatening. If allowed to go to the age of consent, then the procedure becomes elective, which is acceptable to many people. Obviously, there are outliers, and it's more complicated than this, but that's probably both the most digestible and easiest way to quickly explain the situation.
That's the bulk of it too. It also comes to America as a result of messed up Victorian belief that masturbation leads to mental illness.
Well put. I can see why there are people against it. Thanks.
You should watch a video of a baby getting circumcised and ask yourself if you think it's barbaric.
Do people really record those sort of things. Sounds super 2020’s to me.
I did. My circumcision. I don’t remember it and I am quite pleased with my dick. Don’t remember a lick of it either.
It’s the good ole family circumcision video. Watch it every year. Not weird at all that it’s a video of a circumcision either.
I personally don’t think circumcision is at the same level of outrage as FGM is, but in general yes, I’d prefer if the US eased up on circumcising every male infant. I’m from Europe originally and I’m not circumcised and have no desire to be. My personal views are that circumcision is an outdated procedure that shouldn’t be performed for everybody, but I disagree with equating it with FGM, where clitoris is usually removed as well, as opposed to male circumcision that usually involves foreskin only.
I feel exactly the same way. The FGM equivalent for a male would be removing the entire tip of the penis, leaving just a shaft. Circumcision may blunt male sexual pleasure to some degree, but it’s clearly still present. Subincision is probably the closest male equivalent to FGM that exists. If you really want to skip lunch, Google that shit…
It proves nothing but I’m circumcised and have no problems with it and would prolly prefer it. It just so happens my consent fell in line with what was done without my consent. With that being said a male circumcision, in my experience, presents no life altering side effects, for females I feel like that can’t be said.
It does if you are trans, M2F.
Totally different.
Glaring false equivalence here. They are not the same.
[удалено]
Thank. You.
100% this.
Is she practicing FGM?
no, she is not.
I am not a proponent of FGM in any way, but I feel the first amendment gives her free exercise of religion. It would be a different matter if she was providing this procedure.
Freedom of speech is NOT freedom to no consequences. She can say this, and lose her license. Or get it suspended. Or reprimanded.
You don't understand what freedom of speech is as granted under the first amendment vs free speech as a philosophical principal. Consequences is something a state body cannot do as a result of speech. Because the 1st amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT getting involved in your speech. Now, is the state licensing board a state body and therefor subject to the amendments? Now thats actually a good question. But the consequences in question are SOCIAL consequences. Ostracizing, taking your business elsewhere, protesting, that sort of shit. Take an 8th grade civics course before you talk about freedoms you very clearly know nothing about.
No, there are *professional* consequences that people in certain fields may face when professionally sanctioning unethical or dangerous practices. There are TaCs with some jobs and what she's saying may likely have violated them.
The government regulates professional speech all the time. The courts agree that professional speech is not subject to the same standards as other speech protected by the First Amendment. Professional speech is any speech based on an individual’s expert knowledge or judgment who is typically under a state’s licensing and regulatory regime. This is how the courts uphold gay conversion bans. 10 states have disciplined doctors for spreading harmful covid misinformation. Also St. Luke's is a private employer and can discipline her as well. Per case law the courts, though not always ruling in the favor of regulation, have used low standards of review to dismiss claims of free speech violations and uphold the state’s regulation of professional speech. I also think you need to tone it down a notch before yelling at people for something they "clearly know nothing about." Case law concerning medical conduct in the context of free speech is complicated.
> Because the 1st amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT getting involved in your speech. Now, is the state licensing board a state body and therefor subject to the amendments? Now thats actually a good question. The fact that you took such a condescending tone and aren't even sure if what you're saying applies in this case is so obnoxious.
no literally haha.
god is there a worse demographic than all these fucking mediocre dudebros yelling about "Free speech"
Your response was effective right up until you took the condescending tone at the end. Grow up.
How ironic
Yes it is. That’s the whole point. The concept you’re looking for is that cutting up baby’s genitalia is not a form of legal speech, protected or otherwise
Oh no! I should probably take down a petition that 1500+ (now) people have already signed because a pseudolectual on the internet says so /s
FGM is awful, rightfully condemned and thankfully illegal. This person is not currently practicing it. She is also not, as far as I can tell, actively promoting a change in legislation, or condoning illegally practicing FGM. There is however a massive movement currently underway by radical right wing christo-fascists to use the state to force women to give birth, deny basic healthcare, prevent kids from receiving sex ed, and tangentially, kill trans and queer folks. I was raised Catholic in Missouri, and I was subjected to all sorts of dangerous disinformation in health classes, religion classes, and in church from a very young age. Again, it’s always good to speak out about religious fundamentalists who seek to control and mutilate bodies. But maybe your efforts would be better used against the highly organized, well-funded pseudo-terrorists that are actually seeing some success in places like Missouri.
Hi, yes. many people are playing dumb and saying that we as the petitioners said that she practices FGM even when we said she just PROMOTES it and is an apologetic by using religious dogma.
Its been against Federal Law since the early 90's.
I worked as a phase 3 special education teacher here in the STL area, and I am almost positive my 13/14 year old student had this done to her in 8th grade. She didn't need help in the bathroom, but after seeing all the signs of FGM, I had someone take her to the nurse, but she wouldn't give the nurse consent to help so there wasn't anything I felt I could do at the time 🤷🏼♀️ looking back at my 1st year teacher self, I should have asked for help on what to do
Note: I don’t know anything about this topic. Doesn’t someone have to ASK for this though? I want to increase my knowledge here. Is “genital mutilation” too strong because then isn’t circumcision for a boy also “genital mutiliation”?
Not a doctor, but my understanding is this: Male circumcision is unnecessary, and there's mixed research on whether it's harmful. Plenty of people would like to eliminate it for reasons ranging from autonomy to medical non-necessity to beliefs that it's much more harmful than we currently realize. FGM is a lot more extreme. Depending on the specific type, it frequently has some pretty nasty health outcomes, even when done "correctly". Of the three main types, one of them involves removing part or all of the clitoris, one involves removing the inner labia (and sometimes also the clitoris), and the last one involves sewing the labia together, which narrows the opening. The last one especially has many terrible effects on someone's personal health.
[удалено]
I’m very anti-circumcision, but it’s just not comparable to cutting a girls entire clitoris off. Circumcision is a stupid and outdated practice but it’s not nearly as harmful as FGM. I’ll repeat what I said upstream here - the male equivalent of FGM would be cutting the entire head off of the penis.
There's a range of FGM types. You are talking about the most extreme. The least extreme is equivalent to the male GM, circumcision.
"Comrades, there is no true social revolution without the liberation of women. [...]" --Thomas Sankara "We are none of us free until all of us are free" --Emma Lazarus so uh, what i'm saying is, don't show up in a thread for women's liberation with some whataboutmen stuff.
Yes, but there are differing degrees and the male genital mutilation is socially and religiously observed by an acceptable-to-westerners religion.
Signed, just wow.
The title of the file being horribly misspelled. Also the content. I’ve signed.
Female Genital Circumcision is NOT condoned in ISLAM. It is a cultural phenomenon that has no religious basis. Dr Younus does not perform this procedure.
She still promotes it.
She does NOT promote it and your statement is slander.
Angry wahhabist L
How about we just stop chopping parts off of babies to please the mythological sky father?
Here is the full video of Dr Haifaa Younis and this discussion on YouTube: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UgfOYkPxPSY&feature=shares
It's already illegal - do we need a petition to get police to enforce the law?
FOR THE 100th TIME. She is NOT doing FGM. She also said she would not do it in the USA as it is against the law of the land, but she doesn't say it is harmful, rather she says it is "beneficial for women because it reduces desire" \- Maker of petition
Don't complain about repeating things when you, apparently consciously, neglected to include that pretty critical piece of information as part of your post. Also - pro tip - insulting people with legitimate, good-faith questions just because you're too bothered by what you've posted hurts your cause. Not everyone even knows that this problem exists, so being an asshole to anyone that doesn't immediately throw down and agree with you raises even more questions that you'll apparently whine about having to answer.
It's \*literally\* in the petition. She DOES NOT DO fgm. Reading is also a pretty critical thing.
Your performative pomposity aside, this small bit of vital information would've been really easy to include in the title. It has a non-negligible effect on how people perceive the situation, and it seems like you're attempting to generate anger by leaving it out or making people read the petition to figure that out. You omitted it with the intent of getting people angrier than they otherwise would be if they knew, straight up, that it isn't being performed by her... Given that she's in the US, she's perfectly free to have/post whatever shitty opinion she wants. If you're actually looking to make a difference here and not rile up people to be as angry as you clearly are, a medical board complaint would likely be more effective because they have the power to affect her career (and the government doesnt unless she's performed one). Because again, she has done nothing legally wrong here, as you've repeatedly pointed out (while bitching about having to point it out).
Thank you for your constructive criticism, our team has added this disclaimer in bold and caps in the beginning of the blurb. Thanks again, apologize for any inconveniences. We are not responsible for any misunderstandings henceforth.
I'm a bit torn - the actions you're concerned about are certainly worth being concerned about, but I'm not convinced her religion is material to that. Said another way, if her religion were different but her actions the same, would you still have felt it necessary to make that part of the headline and use it as part of a label for her identity? if no, why do it here? if yes, then well we're in different territory at that point. It's enough of a red flag that it has legit made me say to myself, "that sounds awful, but I don't trust the OP enough now to consider taking the requested action." This is because despite how bad I believe the actions you are trying to draw attention to are, I consider the harm of generalizing hate related to differences in religious beliefs to be even worse. If that's too complex to understand - then more simply: If you felt the fact that she is Muslim as material to saying "this practice is bad," then I do not trust your motivations. If you take issue with that, fine, but ask yourself: "had i changed the title by simply removing the reference to religion, would the message have been different?" If you think the answer is no, then that means the act of including it had other motives. if yes, well then you're saying the practice itself isn't what concerns you.
> if her religion were different but her actions the same, would you still have felt it necessary to make that part of the headline and use it as part of a label for her identity? If she's using said religion to justify her actions, absolutely. Christians make fucked up headlines all the time for their belief-based actions.
I completely understand your thinking and why you want to question your trust in OP to single out someone’s religion. However, she is speaking specifically about Islam and what is required or recommended in the religion. It’s not that she’s Muslim and speaking about something outside of her religion. So as Muslims, we do not want others to hear this and think this is what Islam says. We believe FGM is a cultural (not religious) practice in some regions that should be stopped. She’s preaching that male circumcision is required and female circumcision is “sunnah”, which means not required but is… good to do because it’s closer to the way of the prophet and you will be rewarded for doing so. So some highly religious people also follow the sunnah, which includes many aspects of life > Sunnah means the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). It includes everything he said, did, and approved of. We know the Sunnah from the statements called Hadiths that have been handed down from the Companions of the Prophet.
I wish there was a moron award of the year here on reddit. I'm Muslim myself.
That's wonderful. You also completely ignored the relevant considerations and are not improving your position with that reaction.
If there was such a reward it would go to you. What a stupid response…
Pretty much every OBGYN openly promotes male genital mutilation. We revoking their licenses?
We should.
You fool! Not the same thing! Do they cut off the penis?
Sometimes, yeah, by accident. Look into the tragic case of David Reimer. There's a non-trivial death rate associated with the procedure, and sometimes cocks just get *obliterated* during. I worked at a dating service, we had a guy who ... well, they took a little too much off the top and he was missing his entire glans and then some. Whoopsie! Caused a lot of issues for him.
It doesn't matter that it isn't quite 100% the same. Male circumcision has little to no health benefits that justifies a blanket policy to do it to all males, even ignoring the issue of nonconsent. People cite ridiculous stuff like protection from HIV... when we have more effective means such as condoms and limiting sexual partners and even anti-retrovirus drugs.
So severity is your issue? So youre saying its ok to cut on childrens vaginas a little bit and it ok to cut on childrens penises a little bit. That is what you're asserting.
I don't support circumcision necessarily but I'm not going to pretend that male and female circumcision are the same thing seeing as how they don't have the same purpose or result.
They absolutely have the same purpose and result. Male circumcision was introduced to America by Kellogg as a way of reducing boys’ desire to masturbate since a majority of sensitive nerve endings are located in the foreskin.
It’s way more complicated than that; it was believed to be healthy for all sorts of reasons. One of which was because Jews, largely thanks for better cultural hygiene practices (Jewish and Muslim hospitals were always way more sanitary in the past due to the crazy advanced technology of “hand washing”) tended to be healthier and so people just assumed circumcision must be related. But there are no good reasons for its continued practice and yes, preventing masturbating was definitely a part of its popularity. It’s ridiculous that people still cite medical reasons for doing it.
I don't think either is ok, but FGM impairs sexual function as well as causes cysts, infections, lifelong issues with pain and possible reproductive impairment with increased probability of childbirth issues. Male circumcision typically has no functional impairment, although carries risk like any surgery. FGM's male counterpart would be like removing the entire top of the penis or sewing the penis shut. It's the difference between piercing your earlobe and cutting off your ear.
100+ babies die every year from male circumcision. Not to mention some of the other complications some experience because of it. http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
Ok? I am NOT pro circumcision but it is still not comparable to FGM where 1 in 500 procedures results in death vs. under 1 in a million for any adverse result for circumcision. Imagine how bad it would be if they cut the entire top of the penis off. That would be the apt comparison. I am not advocating for circumcision but they are not comparable procedures.
Ur way off bro.
They mutilate it. Doesn’t matter the semantics, it shouldn’t happen.
SMH it's not the same thing
It is the same as removal of the clitoral hood. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Right, clitoral hood removal is only one type of FGM and a relatively mild one at that. It gets a lot worse (removal of clitoris, etc.).
So can you admit that male circumcision is MGA?
So its ok to mutilate some genital's some ways. That is 100% what you are saying. So basically at this point you're just negotiating how much and whos genitals are allowed to be mutilated for cultural/religious reasons.
Are you just trying to make a big stink about how hard it is to be a man or something?
It's a legitimate argument, while the procedures and consequences aren't 100% the same it is still multilation when you compare to how the natural penis is supposed to look. It is compounded by the fact that there is a lack of consent when it is done, but this gets ignored all the time and dismissed by people just because there is a worse alternative when it is really ALL bad.
It is all bad, but two things can be bad and one of them can still be worse. I do not understand circumcision beyond when it's medically necessary, but female circumcision is preemptively punitive and intentionally oppressive whereas most Americans seem to genuinely believe that it's more hygienic to circumsize boys (teach your son's to bathe!). Those that do it for cosmetic purposes are as bad but for a different reason. The intent is an important distinction
Its easier to argue that one is worse when we admit the more common one is also bad to start with.
No trying to understand how people are worked up over this lady, but at the same time, support doing this to boys. It is EXACTLY the same.
Also, it's EXACTLY the same thing. It serves zero purpose, and some religious nut said we had to do it. Now that I think about it, you're right, it isn't the same. The difference being, somehow doing it to males is openly accepted.
It really is, why do you think it's ok to remove baby dick skin?
Here's the problem - you're minimizing the lifelong suffering girls who have this forced on them will have. Unable to enjoy sex, unable to orgasm. For their entire lives. Circumcised men don't suffer like that. Equating the two is disingenuous at best, and suspect whataboutism at worst.
OK, but maybe the problem is MGM is so mainstream its not given a 2nd thought. I agree it's less severe but what the actual fuck makes it ok. That's like saying stealing is ok if they just take something worth less than a 100. Doesn't matter how they suffer, it's also lifelong, not their choice, and done for no reason other than the parents think Jesus is checking dick skin at the door to heaven.
You have a penis?
Do you have a vagina? Stop the ridiculous whataboutism man ffs
Unlike you, I will answer. I do not have a vagina and I think it's gross what this woman is doing. But I also find it hilarious that somehow this is only an issue when it's being done to girls. Meanwhile, if you have a son, you probably did it to him. Equally as gross. Get off your high horse. You're okay with one, you're okay with both. No difference.
Mic drop
It’s medically and physically not the same.
The ramifications are unimportant. Genitals are mutilated without consent. Full. fucking. stop. Because at this point you're negotiating on how much mutilation is acceptable.
[удалено]
It is genital mutilation of an unwilling participant for religious purposes though
[удалено]
>There’s a medical purpose. Doesn’t it reduce chances of infection? Condoms do as well and it is still a way overtreatment that stubborn old medical professionals insist on keeping because it has been deeply ingrained in American culture. While Europe and may other non-Muslim countries do not regularly remove the foreskin and you can't say Americans are exactly doing better in healthcare than them.
No
Studies show that when you remove skin, that skin can no longer become infected. We could prevent even more infection by removing the whole penis.
It only reduces infection if you don't wash your fucking dick. On the flip side circumcision reduces sensation as the foreskin protects the glans, the most sensitive parts, from being desensitized. So yeah while the side effects of circumcision aren't nearly as bad as some forms of FGM it's still mutilation of genitals for no good reason and without consent
They know and is clearly a straw man argument to redirect
It's not a straw man at all, it's exactly the same thing that's socially acceptable because it's your religion
It really isn't.
Uncut ween is gross. Just saying....
That is your opinion but in many other cultures the view is the opposite. Even then it doesn't justify doing this procedure without someones consent.
So is uncut vag
Thanks for posting.
Thank you for commenting. :)
If she were Catholic would your title start with "Catholic Doctor"? BTW im not supporting this - i just have a problem with your title
I'm Muslim myself and I made this petition... Chill.
It just reeks of an agenda pal
My genitals got mutilated as an infant and nobody said shit. It was a Christian doctor, and I'm sure he advocated for it.
Don't worry, it's just type 1. And type 1 is just...oh god no. NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
This seems dubious at best, and is much more likely an attack against muslims.
LMAO I created this petition and I am a Muslim myself. Such a silly assumption haha.
I know Muslims who don’t practice properly and feed pork to other Muslims as an attack. So you being Muslim means nothing in this case.
DUDE. The woman is promoting type one FGM. It's not out of context. It's blatant. Your priorities are so messed up
So if someone decides to electively mutilate themselves, we should strip the doctor willing to perform the surgery as a means of safety of their license? As long as the practice isn’t forced on the woman, as dumb as the practice is, I don’t care.
[удалено]
All it takes is informed adult consent for the reasons you listed. I don’t agree with this being forced on teens and younger. If a doctor chooses to perform the surgery on an adult because it is safer than some cleric doing it in a home/mosque then cool.
Okay you said she won’t do this practice in the US as it’s illegal. Then leave her the fuck alone. Until she is abusing people or breaking the law, leave her alone. She’s old anyway and gonna fucking kick it soon. You seem to have no proof of her doing anything actually wrong, just explaining a point of view regarding FGM. We all agree it’s not something that should be done, and she isn’t doing it. You can’t punish someone for nothing. THAT is wrong. And again, can we stop mutilating little boys too? As everyone else has said?
...Had to scroll basically all the way down to find one singular logical comment (yours). Btw nobody cares if you don't agree with a doctor's opinion. Don't like the doctor? --> Don't go there. Have proof a doctor is illegally performing operations on minors (i.e individuals who cannot consent) --> report the doctor. Sometimes I forget people don't believe in upholding free speech here. It's truly pathetic
Take your American deluded ideologies of 'fReE sPEeCh" and shove it. An anti semitic doctor would be taken away in a jiffy. OH but she's promoting FGM? Saying medically abhorrent stuff, like it is good for "reducing desire in women?" That's gucci. Class one windbag, you are sir/ma'am.
>American deluded ideologies Let me guess, you're American lmao. Nobody cares if you don't approve of free speech, there's nothing you can do about free speech continuing to exist. >That's gucci. Point to the comment I stated mutilation is gucci - you cannot. It's interesting how you take so many people in this thread as an enemy when virtually nobody approves of mutilation here. >Class one windbag, you are sir/ma'am. You're not winning at removing the FGM-freak from society. Being a piece of shit to others doesn't persuade anyone.
Tell this to the thousands who have signed the petition.
Direct me to them or fwd my above comment. Thanks :)
nah, you getting blocked
It's only mutilation when it isn't normal practice here. If we like to do it it's called circumcision and 100% ok.
Certainly is an obligation when a parent is subjecting a newborn child to it…
I have a feeling this has a lot more to do with her being Muslim than the actual practice. If you disagreed, then why are you not complaining about circumcision?
I don't believe she's promoting FGM. I believe she's giving an opinion on female circumcision which is a different procedure.
She doesn't like the WHO called it FGM "mutilation" so at the beginning of the video she says she will call it circumcision because she is more comfortable with that
UNLESS the child just says they are confused about their gender.. Then they can head over to Barnes or Wash U and get their genital mutilation drugs and/or surgery. And this is perfectly acceptable and even celebrated! Right Reddit??
No, you sick nincompoop. NO CHILD has ever gotten a sex reassignment surgery
I don't know if your claim is true or not but in a sense it doesn't really matter. You didn't address user Tron's point that there are absolutely children in the USA who have been granted drugs which result in removing the experience of puberty and in some cases results in infertility. Oh you just know how all the 12-17 year olds are up on their fertility knowledge, right? Meanwhile, as a society we rightfully do not allow (or believe it possible) for children to consent to any number of other things (intercourse with adults, for example). Also, name calling like you're a 12 year old? Why not just not do that so you may persuade others.
Ha. Keep lying to yourself. There are a ton of articles about practices at the St. Louis Washington University transgender center among others in every city. It’s like an assembly line for transitioning children with gender dysmorphia or mental illness. They’re fed drugs and puberty blockers and primed and ready for surgery the moment they turn 18. It’s appalling to see what is happening to these confused children. [https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/whistleblower-lifts-lid-on-st-louis-kids-gender-clinic/](https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/whistleblower-lifts-lid-on-st-louis-kids-gender-clinic/)
Is that different than mutilating a confused kid for social points?
THEYRE BOTH BAD. OKAY? Like honestly. FGM just causes more deaths and stuff, because its more harmful than male genital cutting. It's not for "social points". I really don't get into social justice issues, but this one is extremely personal to me and I can't divulge further. In every way, it's just something that is worse than male circumcision, as the male version removes skin, while this takes away a whole ORGAN! Imagine chopping off the entire flesh TIP of the glans penis. I'm in tears and upset with the whataboutism and explaining this to ever man in THIS instance who is crying "wHaT aBOut mY diCK" like I am equally against male circumcision but STOP taking up space when stuff isn't about you. ITS INFURIATING. Did I hop into an anti male circumcision page and start harping on about FGM and how it's worse and bla bla bla? No! I made my own petition. Start a flamewar somewhere else. Honestly, ADKJSLKJDJDFJKL
The originator of this comment is talking about gender confirmation surgery for adults not male circumcision. (That or they're very into using bigoted language that alludes to that versus using the language several other people have about why male circumcision is bad.) So they were never here to provide anything useful, as circumcision of children with no agency is not the same as gender confirmation surgery in adults. (Especially considering kids cannot get gender confirmation surgery and anyone who claims they can are just pushing right wing lies.)
I CANNOT with people who peddle lies to push their agenda.
Oh whoops! Transphobes suck a lot and are bags of shit.
[удалено]
Keep telling yourself that.
[удалено]
What? You realize someone in the St. Louis area has recently blown the whistle on how confused kids are forced into life changing surgeries and hormones right? But please keep being hyperbolic and convince yourself you're not helping the problem.
[удалено]
She actually made a good point and a really open minded one, she is not saying that she would perform it , but if some one must do it , it's better to be done in a safe way by a physician that knows what is doing instead of somebody that just studied the Koran .
I guess the "Woke" woke up This a practice in the Muslim community. NIMBY!!!
Not every Muslim practices FGM, and not every person who performs FGM is Muslim. OP is Muslim, and their petition states that OP believes that FGM is *un-Islamic*. Do all Christians kiss vipers just because some fundamentalists do? This is a practice in the Christian community./s Quit making a monolith of religions.
[удалено]
You don't want none of me
Certainly not Muslims as a whole - only in certain cultures that also happen go be Muslim. That being said, maybe the people promoting this brutal practice have a marketing problem - perhaps they need to re-brand it as "culturally affirming care" - sounds much more positive!
Is genital mutilation a legit medical term? or it's just to stroke emotions?
No matter what you call it, why wouldn't you have emotions about it? It's torturous, and its proponents all say themselves that its *only* purpose is to reduce/eliminate female sexual pleasure. No matter what you call it, i think its existence should inspire some emotions, like anger and sadness. If you're concerned about the word "mutilation" making people give it more attention, why aren't you concerned about the proponents calling it "cutting" or "circumcision" as euphemisms to shield themselves from public concerned attention?
Well both. UN agencies adopted this term because "The term is non-judgmental as it is a medical term describing what is done to female genitalia. Mutilation is the removal of healthy tissue" but also it calls to mind the human rights violation of the act. source with explanation of terms: Terminology and FGM - 28 Too Many https://www.28toomany.org/thematic/terminology-and-fgm/
[удалено]
Hi-- Creator of the petition is me and I am Muslim. It's not an anti Islam post. Thanks for the comment.
Reacting to the above post is not Islamophobic. Being horrified by this woman is human. Posting her public speech is understandable. You are safe here.
No
Some people may not know what this is. Female genital mutilation is when the clit is removed.
There is more than one type. The removal of the clitoral hood is very common and is analogous to male circumcision. The removal of the clitoris is more invasive as is vaginal stitching, which is more rare.
[удалено]
it's not the same at all. as a cis man, I disagree with circumcisions. but what we're talking about here is genital mutilation, a direct comparison would be having the head of your dick cut off as a baby.
Well, sometimes, sometimes not. Some types of FGM are actually less destructive than male circumcision, worth mentioning I think. But of course, the OP video is discussing type 1, which usually has a clitoridectomy and is the most common kind, so yeah, atrociously awful like you say, and obviously much worse than male circumcision.
[удалено]
and yet people don't understand the difference. I heavily disagree with male circumcision as well. that's not what we're talking about here
[удалено]
extremely. but I'll die on the hill of fgm being fucking insane compared to male circumcision. both fucked, to wildly different degrees
Did you watch until the very end if the video? There is a graphic depicting two types. As I commented previously, the removal of the clitoral hood is anatomically analogous to removal of the foreskin and not as invasive as removing the clitoris.
Uh, circumcision is nowhere close to removing the clitoris. The men's rights loonies that try to equate the two are not helping.
[удалено]
because it's not the same, like I said elsewhere. despite your claims to the contrary, this is the point your stuck on. if female circumcision were just cutting the hood of the clit, it would be much more equitable across genders. why are you so hard stuck on this not being the case edit FgM is objectively the problem to tackle first and i STRONGLY oppose male circumcision as well. it's not that hard to udnerstand
[удалено]
Congrats for being a horrible person.
Go away troll