I am familiar with this debate in two ways. First, I come from a culture where virtually every woman has undergone genital cutting. I was 5 years old when mine were cut and sewn. Second, while serving as a member of parliament in the Netherlands, I was assigned the portfolio for the emancipation and integration of immigrant women. One of my missions was to combat practices such as FGM.

To understand this problem, we need to begin with parental motives. The “nicking” option is regarded as a necessary cleansing ritual. The clitoris is considered to be an impure part of the girl-child and bleeding it is believed to make her pure and free of evil spirits.

But the majority of girls are subjected to FGM to ensure their virginity—hence the sewing up of the opening of the vagina—and to curb their libido to guarantee sexual fidelity after marriage—hence the effective removal of the clitoris and scraping of the labia. Think of it as a genital burqa, designed to control female sexuality.

When the motive for FGM is to ensure chastity before marriage and to curb female libido, then the nick option is not sufficient.

Moreover, the nick option does not address the main problem in Western liberal democracies where FGM is outlawed, which is that it can almost never be detected, so that few perpetrators are brought to justice. Even if we were to consider tolerating it in its most limited form, how could we tell that parents who want to ensure that their daughter will be a virgin on her wedding night will not have her (legally) nicked and then a few months later (illegally) infibulated? I applaud the compassion for children that inspires the pediatricians’ proposal, but they need to eliminate this risk for little girls.

Legislation is only a first step and even with that there is no uniformity. Some states have passed bills that define FGM in all its manifestations and punish it. Some states have none, but place FGM under existing laws of child abuse. So Rep. Crowley’s next move should be to push for uniform enforcement of his bill.

But even once the legislative flaws are fixed, there remains the really difficult question of detection.

For the law to have any meaningful effect in eradicating FGM in the U.S., we need to work out a way of knowing when a girl has been mutilated. As a legislator in the Netherlands, this was for me the thorniest issue. In the United States, where civil liberties are even more jealously guarded, the thorns are likely to be sharper still.

Tammy said upthread: “Morecowbell, FGM is not the equivalent of male circumcision. It’s like saying getting your hair cut is the same as having your head chopped off.”

Actually, it fundamentally IS the same as male cutting. Both are forms of genital mutilation and BOTH are wrong.

There are different degrees of female genital mutilation; for instance, removing the clitoral hood and/or the labia/vulva would be pretty equivalent to what we routinely subject baby boys to in this country.

“FGM vs. MGM”
http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/intact/fgm.html

“Description of the different types of female genital mutilation”
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defined.html

There is a huge misconception in American society that FGM is somehow so much worse than MGM – this is not true, but even if it were, does this make MGM okay? I think not.

Take a look at this:

“Comparative Quotations on Misconceptions about Ritual Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Ritual Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)”
http://www.boystoo.com/fgm&mgm.htm

And for a great overall source:
http://www.circumstitions.com/

This is, of course, unconstitutional because boys are not granted the same protection under the law (well, technically, infant male cutting *is* illegal, but authorities turn a blind eye to such technicalities).

Is it any surprise, then, that the tide might eventually turn against the females here as well?

The only positive to this stupidity on the part of the AAP is that it brings infant male genital mutilation (MGM) into the discussion.

Both forms of genital mutilation should be banned outright. No compromises for culture. Or religion.

I looked up that Doctor…. GAWD…She’s repugnant looking, why am I not surprised. Progressive women are just so physically unattractive…

If a parent said they were going to break their childs’ arm because it was part of their culture, would we assist them in doing so or suggest they go back to their country of origin to do it? Why should doctors then participate in cutting a little girl’s genitals in ANY manner?

It’s true that just because a country makes something illegal does not mean they enforce it (sort of like America not enforcing her border laws and look where we are). We’re also talking about countries where Islam is largely practiced where clerics (not judges) interpret the law very loosely on any given day. They do not regard the law – or life or humans in general – in the same light as we do. Women and girls are already subjugated on every level in such societies, so are we going to compromise our laws when a Muslim man decides he wants to stone his wife to death? Maybe our domestic abuse organizations could make the compromise to where he uses only small stones that will bruise her up really good, but not allow him to kill her. Sound outrageous? Sure! SO IS MUTILATING A GIRL’S GENITALS IN ANY WAY!

A ‘little nick’ is just as insane and damaging as a full-blown castration of a girl! How in the world is that saving these little girls from torture? Oh, so it’s not a full castration – just damaging (mentally and physically) and therefore, altering a very sensitive area for the rest of her life. We cannot compromise on ANY of this!

If a parent in America is requesting such an evil to be performed on their child, they need to be arrested and prosecuted! So there! That’s the legal and effective way of deterring – hopefully, eliminating – such horrors! I don’t give a damn about the country of origin’s traditions – when people come to live in America, they accept our laws and begin a new life here; we do not change our laws and way of life to accommodate theirs – nor should we give parents threatening to mutilate their daughters the ability to be mobile to carry out the crime in another country!

We are America. We lead nations forward – we don’t compromise with the backward beasts of the world (only our president does). The moment we do, we lose our way of life. Compromising on FGM is a step toward Shariah Law – it has no place in America and, frankly, it should not have a place in the world. Why is that so difficult to understand?