Talk:Female genital mutilation

Ritual? - Again!

@KlayCax regarding this revert - I can see the need to distinguish cosmetic, or other ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures from FGM. Doctors presumably discount these procedures from FGM as they aren't inherently 'damaging' ie they don't 'mutilate'. Again, presumably the WHO definition doesn't mention such procedures since even 'cosmetic' procedures (properly conducted in sterile circumstances) may have psychological benefits, even if they aren't strictly (physically) medically necessary. However I doubt whether any of these nuances are conveyed by the word 'ritual' and tend to think that wholly inapt associations may be conferred instead. Briefly, the word is unclear and ambiguous in the present context IMO.

'Ritual suicide/disembowelling' or 'ritual slaughter' (as used to describe the killing of animals for animal sacrifice by some religions or for meat for other religions), or 'ritual sharing of bread and wine’, or 'pagan rituals' all refer to procedures being carried out in established (usually elaborate) ways for religious or quasi-religious reasons. 'Ceremonial' is a synonym given by M. Webster for this (the primary) meaning. Equally, 'ritual' can refer to almost tediously repetitive and routine tasks (the nightly ritual of removing her make up, brushing her teeth and preparing for bed), though this use is more often a noun than an adjective.

‘Ritual' can refer to any number of elaborate, established, cultural or social practices/ rites of passage etc, done in pre-established ways (often religious or imbued with quasi-religious significance). Most of these meanings imply a manner in which something is done rather than what, or even why it is done. Which of the meanings applies here and how am I to know what is meant?

Mirriam Webster lists the third adjectival meaning as "done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol. examples ritual handshakes ritual background checks", which I guess approaches the intended meaning here - ie not done because of the individual body or person, but rather done routinely to young females as part of some rites of passage at some stage prior to full womanhood. But if this is the intended meaning, why is that element not explored in the body of the article? The word 'ritual' is never used again anywhere in the article (though it is used in the titles of a small number of refs - some out of date).

Almost equally pertinently - if FGM is ONLY "ritual cutting", does that mean that similarly ‘mutilating’ cutting NOT done in whatever ritualised way is meant here, is not FGM? This is the inevitable implication of including this adjective ie that barbaric mutilation is not FGM, if it is done in some ’non-ritual’ manner. Actually it is surely the WHAT that is done, as much as the primitive WAY that it is done, or even the WHY it is done that both WHO and doctors and campaigners object to. It is called mutilation for a reason, which is approximately because it does substantial, irreversible harm with no known benefits, even when done in 'clean' conditions.

I raised this once before a few years ago when I first read this page. No one was able to offer any definition or synonym for ‘ritual’, or explanation for its presence except “but I regard "ritual" as merely having its ordinary English meaning”. I have to say that the ‘ordinary English meaning’ isn’t remotely apparent to me and the word ’stuck out like a sore thumb’ when I first came to this page. Flyer22 had raised similar concerns as far back as 2014 here - though her main objection was that not all FGM is 'ritual', rather than mine which is that the term is ambiguous and thus fails to clarify. Ironically the reason I came to the page in 2018 was because I wanted to know how FGM was distinguished from ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures, since I had just read an article on that subject by a physician who was complaining about, what she saw as, the overuse of such cosmetic procedures in western medicine on relatively young girls/women.

IMO, our present definition, apart from seemingly being a bit WP:OR, by modifying established WHO etc definitions, fails to state clearly what you say the object of the addition actually IS, i.e. to distinguish FGM, from recognised, legitimate surgical procedures. If WP needs to make clear that ‘bona fide’ surgical procedures are NOT included in the generally accepted/WHO/UNESCO definition - why not simply say that in the sentence following the WHO definition? There is zero ambiguity then. Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A source from the article is An Ancient Ritual and a Mother's Asylum Plea. A key point about FGM it is that is often culturally "inherited" in the sense that the next generation does the same as the previous generation because that's the way it's always been done, that is, it's a ritual. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand fully why FGM is usually done, but is that meaning actually conveyed by the word? That isn't covered by any of the meanings listed in Mirriam-Webster, though it's a bit of a merge of 'routine' (MW meaning 2) and "done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol' (MW meaning 3), but both refer to the manner of doing something, not what is actually done, which is surely the reason for it being called 'mutilation' and why WHO and medical people and campaigners object to the practice.

A key point about FGM … is that is often culturally "inherited"… because that's the way it's always been done, that is, it's a ritual. Firstly, by using 'often' you are endorsing Flyer22's objection from 2014, ie often=not always, so it fails to validly clarify the WHO definition. The article title is fairly rhetorical and thus unhelpful in a definition. I'm not saying the word is wrong - though its intended meaning has to be extacted rather painfully - I'm saying its meaning is unclear and carries unhelpful rhetorical baggage, and the word isn't expanded anywhere in the body.Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By happenchance, I noted yet another meaning of 'ritual' in the sources used in this article. "Group Backs Ritual 'Nick' as Female Circumcision Option"-The New York Times, 6 May 2010 . Here 'ritual' (admittedly in conjunction with 'nick' - a minor cut) is being used to mean token or purely symbolic. This is certainly NOT the intended meaning in this article, no one suggests that there is anything 'token' about FGM.

I also recently came across two uses in relation to 'blood libel' - in which medieval christian cathedral art is described as representing Jewish 'ritual' killing of christian babies - ie killing as part of (alleged) elaborate Jewish religious rites - which is approx. the primary meaning in MW dictionary - approx. synonymous to 'religious ceremonial in manner'. Again this isn't the meaning on this article since, nobody is suggesting that these mutilations are being performed in some elaborate ceremonial fashion - even if they are often performed as part of 'rites of passage' of girls of a particular age in some societies.

All these tend to confirm that the use here - apart from being WP:OR-ish, in that it isn't part of any standard (eg WHO) definition of FGM - is actually ambiguous and muddling. rather than being a helpful clarifier. I'm going to start an RfC about the word unless someone can persuade me that it's sourced and its meaning is clear to most readers. Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You and I have completely different understandings of ritual. The NYT article you linked talks about "ritual nick" where ritual means that the urge of the parents to continue the cultural FGM habit might be satisfied by a nick, and nick means minor. Why do those parents want FGM for their daughters? Because it's one of the rituals that is part of their heritage. The suggestion is that a "ritual nick" performed in the US would be a better outcome than the likely alternative, namely that the parents would ship their daughters to another country for full FGM. Many boys are circumcised as a cultural ritual, just like FGM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I understood what the NYT article was proposing. My understanding(s) of the word are confirmed by at least three very distinct MW dictionary definitions - none of which mentions anything being 'handed down' - accept implicitly in the same sense that celebrating 25th December is full of handed down cultural practices. More importantly which accepted definition of FGM does the word appear in and how on earth do you expect the reader to understand which of the three - very different- MW meanings applies here? And are you really saying that the definition of WHAT happens, the procedure, is objected to by WHO and western medical agencies because it is a cultural practice? FGM is objected to and defined by the fact that it commonly does physical harm and has no medical benefits. Details like cultural justifications and primitive equipment and crude conditions under which it is often done are excacerbating features - they aren't central to WHAT is done, how FGM is defined.

I'm not an expert, but presume that male circumcision is NOT objected to by WHO and other authorities because it is intrinsically less harmful. The 'ritual' aspect of Jewish and Muslim circumcision (and possibly some other groups) refers to the fact that the circumcising is done as part of an established ceremony, not to the fact that it is done for cultural reasons, which is true, but incidental. 'Medical' doesn't mean 'done by people in white coats'. But I'm not defending any of these practices, simply wanting a clear accurate, recognised definition of what FGM is. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

postscript You are yourself using 'ritual in two distinct ways - 'ritual nick' meaning purely 'token', a 'merely symbolic' small cut, whereas one of the rituals that is part of their heritage refers to an event which is a 'rite of passage', and presumably dense with cultural meaning, the antithesis of something 'token'. I just don't think we should be so vague and ambiguous about defining - what is in the end - a surgical procedure, or practice. Pincrete (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

FGM = Circumcision analogy

@Pincrete: @Johnuniq: @KlayCax: @MrOllie:

A user here added a section comparing circumcision to FGM, but the first resource in the article (Came across this from @KlayCax: on circumcision's talk. MrOllie also stated that analogies shouldn't be used.) states Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.Doesn't this mean that this analogy is rejected and shouldn't be included? It seems like there's an agreement that analogies between the two don't work? (Note that I'm biased. I converted to Reform Judaism as an adult and underwent circumcision. Presently, I am extremely shocked at the lack of current neutrality on the topic. It feels like people are pushing an agenda on the subject.) OntologicalTree (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete, KlayCax, and MrOllie: @OntologicalTree: Your ping did not work (diff) so I have redone it. To be successful, a notification must be in a new comment with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Medical authorities may reject such analogies and terminology, but that doesn't mean everyone does. I find the section informative and don't see why it should be removed. All sorts of cultural issues come into play iro FGM, and female cosmetic surgery, and, to a lesser extent (male) circumcision. I don't see how it is 'pushing an agenda' to record that such analogies have been made. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC) … ps I didn't check the sources used before posting this comment. Obviously, if they don't make the FGM/circumcision analogy, they shouldn't be used. The Dutch Med Ass below does make such an analogy, though of course not claiming equivalence and that would seem to justify such text (even if text has to be modified). Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources that this claim was based upon — AAP (2012), Frisch et al. (2013), AAP (2013), Freedman (2016) — never make an analogy between (male) circumcision and FGM. They simply state that there is a debate within the academic literature about the strength of its prophylactic effect in developed countries. Of the source within the article that does mention the topic: it (as OntologicalTree points out) states that The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision. As I previously stated on talk: It's true that there's been ethical discussion about the procedure. That's much different than saying they are analogous.

OntologicalTree. I think mentioning transgender-related topics is similarly WP: Undue and request a reversion of changes. I'm going to RFC if an agreement on this can't be reached. It shouldn't be in the article. KlayCax (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Royal Dutch Medical Association has compared and contrasted FGM with male circumcision. I’m pretty sure their viewpoint on FGM vs. circumcision used to be reflected in this article; we should consider re-adding it. Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that the present content seems to have removed most of the 'analogous' procedures, irrespective of the quality of sourcing. Most people would not wholly agree with many of these analogies, but if they have been competently framed, why exclude them? Also the present section title: Differentiation betweeen African, Western cosmetic procedures is both inaccurate and clumsy. The section isn't primarily noting differences between the two and FGM is not anyway solely African, nor recognised 'cosmetic' procedures inherently Western. It's hard to say what the present purpose of the section is - obviously it should not go too much off-topic to 'related' controversies, but I don't see why we should be excluding competent (especially medical) comparisons. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, it is perfectly WP:DUE to cover significant minority viewpoints. Comparisons between FGM & circumcision, and FGM & transgender genital cutting should be covered, FGM & Intersex Genital Mutilation comparisons should definitely be covered. Prcc27 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. An independent source free of cultural bias is far more valid than cultures perpetuating an act initially indocrinated without evidence and post-hoc justified with spurious studies. Hypocriticalreason (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Slow edit war

There seems to be a slow edit war here. See the recent page history. This is a Wikipedia:Featured article and this Wikipedia:FAOWN applies. The top editor who took it through reviews died; nevertheless FAOWN still applies, which states: Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. These are significant changes and need significant discussion. At this point I'm tempted to roll back to entire article to the version that went through review. In the least I'm rolling back the many changes and suggest strongly that we not deviate the original version's section Comparison with other procedures. Victoria (tk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The section is definitely WP:UNDUE now. The only comparison between FGM and circumcision in the article, is a pro-FGM one: “Carla Obermeyer maintains that FGM may be conducive to women's well-being within their communities in the same way that rhinoplasty and male circumcision may help people elsewhere”. The anti-circumcision/anti-FGM viewpoint is a significantly more prominent viewpoint than the pro-FGM/pro-circumcision one. The article used to give due weight to these viewpoints, but now it does not. Unless the article changes, I think we should add an UNDUE template, since the section is problematic. I also think it is problematic that MrOllie was pinged to this discussion, even though he was not involved in the mini edit war, but an involved editor (@Neveselbert:) was not pinged. Prcc27 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

(The above comment was made before I saw that you self-reverted yourself.) Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, didn't look closely enough at the history before reverting you and had to self-revert.

So the article went through review with a section called Comparison with other procedures. At some point that section acquired additional subheadings as seen in this last version by the primary author. That's the version we should be working from and gaining consensus. At this point I support reverting to 18 April 2021 version per WP:FAOWN. My suspicion is that the additional headers/subsections are an invitation to add more text. Given the way the TOC is formatted in V22 (those sections aren't visible) it's best to flatten the TOC as much as possible. That, at least would be a starting place. Victoria (tk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I share your concerns about adding too much text, this article is supposed to be about female genital cutting, not other types of genital cutting. Reverting to the original version would be UNDUE though per the reasons I gave above. However, the current version may also be UNDUE because it deviates too far from the main topic of the article. I would propose condensing the section, and we could agree to not add content that veers away from FGM. Would this address your concerns about too much text being added? Prcc27 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The best way of doing this is to start with the reviewed version/s. There's Wikipedia:Peer review/Female genital mutilation/archive2 that closed with this version. Then there was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive2 that passed with this version. SlimVirgin added the headers and rearranged the text, without substantial changes to it other than repositioning, here on 1 November 2018. I think that's our starting point, because it's an FA. I'd argue the headers aren't helpful, so if we can gain consensus to remove them, that's a first step. The next would be to look at the text itself, sentence by sentence (and, obviously the sourcing). Let's wait for others to chime in. There's no rush. Victoria (tk) 00:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be changed, updated, and improved upon. I don’t agree with reverting to an old version, based on a review from several years ago. The important thing for us to do, is to find a consensus. But yes, I do hope other users will share their thoughts. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

FGM in Somalia

Somalia is seeing a rise in female genital mutilation due to the lack of awareness of the consequences. The majority of the procedures are performed on preteen girls. There was an uptake in these fatal procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, shown with a direct correlation to the rise of girls dropping out of school.

“Female Genital Mutilation: A Daily Grim Reality for Girls in Somalia - Somalia.” ReliefWeb, 6 Feb. 2023, reliefweb.int/report/somalia/female-genital-mutilation-daily-grim-reality-girls-somalia. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. Polka365 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

Under the Terminology section, the below quote disengenuously represents the severity of multiple forms of what the WHO defines as female genital mutilation when compared to male genital mutilation (presented within the quotation using the euphimism of "circumcision").

"Until the 1980s, FGM was widely known in English as "female circumcision", implying an equivalence in severity with male circumcision."

Type IA of female genital mutilation is directly analgous to male genital mutilation. Multiple other forms of female genital mutilation as defined by the WHO are far less severe than male genital mutilation including all defined acts under Type IV. Hypocriticalreason (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 05:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No valid source for “this is rarely performed alone”

Under “types” it is stated that type Ia FGM is rarely performed alone, that is to say, it is typically performed congruently with type Ib. However, neither of the supposed sources provided corroborate this claim. Eliek1996 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Note [f] includes, "in very rare cases, only the prepuce" (prepuce = clitoral hood) and "this form appears to be relatively rare" and "Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself". That supports the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)