(Recommended Artist: Pineapple Thief – Don’t Hate Me)

Female circumcision, or female genital mutilation / modification (FGM), is an emotional topic. I remember, in school, being shown a video of young girls undergoing the practice. It was presented as a barbaric practice that Muslims — all Muslims, I thought at the time — do, as something that should most certainly be abolished for the same reasons we ban rape and slavery.

But, as usual, when ethics and emotions intersect, the arguments are low in quality and ignorance runs high; people speak of that which they do not understand. It is very tempting to say that FGM is a most terrible practice and should most certainly be banned from all countries, that religion or tradition is no excuse for such inhumanity, but things are more complex than this, and I make it my purpose here to clarify the issue to most.

Before I begin dissecting this matter, I must first clarify one thing: it is a fallacy to compare the ethics of a certain surgical procedure as done in an African country (where FGM may exist) and another practice as done in a Western country. The reason for this is that the risks involved are not the same in both situations and with the practice and its potential consequences different, then the weight of this practice must also differ. Thus, when I refer to male or female genital modification (M/FGM), I will refer to them as they would be done in a Western country: that is, in hygienic conditions, with the proper tools and executed by a competent individual. It is absurd to compare the ethics of male circumcision in a multimillion dollar hospital with the ethics of FGM in a village, with HIV, stagnant water and a rusty knife wielded by an illiterate man. It is not here that I will consider the policies of those African countries where this practice does exist; for the sake of consistency, I will work within the framework of a Western country, with modern technology.

First, I should answer those who make this an issue of religion. Consider that in Egypt 97% of families are suspected to practice it, yet the country is roughly 90% Muslim and 10% Christian. Thus, between 70 and 100% of Egyptian Christian families practice it. By looking at the situation in other countries as well, as well as to the fact that scripture does not support FGM, it seems clear that this practice has little to do with religion.

There are indeed religious leaders who personally support the practice and, as the routine goes, invoke the will of God to justify their beliefs and actions, but there is no theological basis for this and religious leaders of all religions have been known to make rather insane claims. In no religion is the practice of FGM common and it is mostly reserved to some African countries, but it is good to note that the only genital modification that is supported by scripture is male circumcision, which is supported by the Old Testament/Torah. The Qur’an, on the other hand, does not show support to any such practice, though Muslims, like Jews, are expected to have their boys circumcised. The same goes for a significant segment of Christians.

As for theological arguments, it should be noted that any body modification can be perceived as an affront to God, as a suggestion that we can improve upon His designs; whether religious people wish to see things as such is their choice, but it is very easy to rationalise the abolishment of M/FGM based on theological arguments (and scripture supports many things that religious leaders believe should be illegal; few of Leviticus’ laws are implemented in Israel, for example).

Now that I am done trying to ward off those seeking to justify their xenophobia, we should look at what “FGM” entails. It seems that there are four distinct procedures that fall under FGM: removal of the clitoral hood, labia minora and of the clitoral glans, as well as the sewing of the labia majora’s lips.

I will first describe male circumcision, since this is something that most can agree should not be outlawed.

Removing the prepuce causes initial pain, but no lasting physical damage. Research surrounding its effect on sexual pleasure have been inconclusive and so are personal accounts of men who have had the procedure done at a late age. So, ultimately, the effects of male circumcision on sexual pleasure seem irrelevant to the debate.

In recent years, people have begun supporting circumcision as a tool to lower the risk of HIV/AIDS in countries where it is epidemic, but in Western countries people are far less reluctant to wear condoms and this is the only way to drastically reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS; circumcision will, at best, have a minor effect, if any at all. So I will disregard this aspect of the debate as well.

Considering its minimal permanent effects, be they positive or negative, and the relative insignificance of its short term effects (pain), though I would not recommend circumcision because I believe that this is a decision people should choose for themselves, rather than have it imposed upon them at birth, I must support the right of parents to do so.

How does this compare to the four types of FGM I have mentioned earlier?

There is too little research concerning FGM, but based on what we do know, it is clear that removing the clitoral glans has a largely negative impact on a major source of sexual pleasure. This alone is enough of a reason to ban the practice: it causes permanent damage to women.

Removing the clitoral hood, on the other hand, would be the surgery most comparable to circumcision and I’d even say that circumcision is worst. Why? Women who have their clitoral hood removed find it much easier to achieve orgasm during intercourse because the clitoral glans more easily comes into contact with the male’s body. It is not usually imposed upon children in this part of the world, but women into body modification sometimes do this for positive results (sometimes, the clitoral hood is simply excised for similar effect). Because the clitoris is extremely sensitive — sometimes to the point of being painful –, female circumcision of this sort may prove inconvenient in this respect, but based on personal accounts, it appears that women have been glad to have had this procedure done. Of course, for them it was a choice.

More research should be done into the matter, but based on what we do know, I see no more of a reason to ban this subset of FGM than I see a reason to ban its male equivalent. Families who have made a tradition of FGM should see this as an option, since it compares well with male circumcision and is far better for women than the removal of the clitoral glans (though it is unclear to which extent we could influence the decisions of such families). Read more about the consequences of removing the clitoral hood here.

Another practice is to remove the labia minora. The few Western women who do this do so for aesthetics, though it is more common to simply reduce the size of labia minora. From what I can tell, its function is mostly superficial if the woman lives in hygienic conditions, so I see little cause for worry about traditions which remove the labia minora from young girls. Here is an account from a couple where the woman had her clitoral hood removed as well as her labia minora. Again, in terms of ethics, the practice seems to be no different than male circumcision: the issue of consent is the main point of contention.

Finally, there is the sewing of the labia majora’s lips. This is done so as to ensure the chastity of the woman. Even if there is no pain involved, I believe that children are still masters of their body and, though I can tolerate parents imposing aesthetic or minor changes upon their children, even if unnecessary, even without consent, sewing the labia majora’s lips prevents the woman from engaging in sexual activity, limiting one of her basic needs. It also appears to be unhealthy, making it more difficult to clean the genitals. Some could, however, argue that this protects them against rape — perhaps a valid argument –, but I am not sure that this is enough to justify surgery on every single woman any more than it would justify using chastity belts on every single man; at least the chastity belts can easily be removed if one has the key and no needles need to be struck through anyone’s genitals.

So, this leaves us with the removal of the male’s prepuce as well as the removal of the female’s clitoral hood and labia minora on one side. These practices in no way limit the person, but merely impose a change that is, ultimately, merely a change. One could very well argue that people should be free to make this decision for themselves, that parents have no right to force this upon young children, but I believe that these practices fit neatly within the Western moral framework: piercing a child’s ears or male circumcision are currently accepted.

On the other hand, we have the sewing of the labia majora’s lips and the removal of the clitoral glans. These practices impose, respectively, semi-permanent and permanent changes upon the person involved, changes that have a clear effect on their capacity to enjoy sexual activity (for the majora lips, the thread is cut upon marriage, it seems). Though some parents believe it their duty to maintain the virginity of their daughters, I see no value in virginity and it is ultimately the choice of these women to have sex, and this with whom they want; their parents should have little say here. It is all perhaps a matter of degree, and some might make arguments about cultural relativism, but it clearly goes against modern Western standards of what is right and what is wrong. I believe that parents who wish to impose this change on their children should be punishable by law, but they should be informed that the other practices — removing the clitoral hood and labia minora — are alternatives that are deemed more ethical and, for this reason, are legal.

We have to be practical: even if all of these practices are morally reprehensible, there are parents who have this in their traditions and I believe that the best we can do for the children is go with the lesser evils. This is possible all while being consistent: it would be hypocritical to ban the removal of the clitoral hood while allowing male circumcision.

As for non-Western countries where this is common, there is little we can do except promote our own values: ultimately, it is up for them to deal with this issue. I am, however, convinced that as these countries grow wealthier and become urbanised, modernised; then the movements against this practice will grow in strength. Even in Egypt where, as I mentioned, FGM is almost universal, there was a recent ban on the practice that was supported by “the country’s top religious authorities [who] also expressed unequivocal support for the ban. ” It seem like a matter of general education, first and foremost.

-Dussault

2 Comments »

1. Comments I gave directly to someone:

   I have absolutely no idea if we could convince them to “switch”. We need more data on FGM amongst Canadians. I assume that they do not all just abandon the practice once they immigrate here; it’s the kind of thing that’s kept in the dark, so it’s impossible to know and thus we must be careful not to engage in wishful thinking. I doubt it’s the kind of thing that would last through the generations: I expect that second generation immigrants would be far less likely to get the procedure done.

   Even amongst African countries, there are a lot of differences on the details behind the practices as well as in the beliefs that fuel them. The WHO has some data on the different “types” of FGM and their prevalence, but I don’t like how the different types are organised and it doesn’t tell us how they see the whole thing.

   But, at the very least, it might be easier to convince them to modify the procedure than to stop it; though the sewing of the majora lips is probably hard to replace, since this has a clear “mechanical” purpose, while removing the clitoral glans — the other “problematic” form of FGM — could be removed, all while keeping the removal of the clitoral hood and labia minora (the girls often get a “package deal”).

   The issue here is that there’s no way to enforce this. An educational campaign in these countries would be more useful than laws that can not be enforced and, rather than advocate a total ban, it would be easier to focus efforts on ending sub-sets of FGM so that people who practice it do not feel completely alienated. But maybe it’s better to just focus on ending FGM as a whole; it’s really hard to say.

   Egypt, where the practice is almost universal, appears to have banned it in 2007. We’ll have to see how this turns out.

   Comment by Dussault — May 12, 2009 @ 6:16 PM

2. The arguments attempting to separate male circumcision from the female variety are strained and not very convincing to men whose circumcision amounted to genital mutilation. Serious so-called complications include urethral laceration, partial glans amputation, insufficient skin for erection (not recognized until puberty), buried penis, amputation, and rarely death (1 in 500,000). By any measure there are *thousands* of men in the U.S. whose circumcisions resulted in these injuries. Here we have a fake feminist attacking the non-consensual removal of sexual tissue from girls by dismissing the non-consensual removal of sexual tissue from boys. But that swings both ways: circumcision of girls is performed almost exclusively by women, and for the same litany of reasons: better hygiene, looks better, reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections and vulvar cancer, and best of all everyone does it. Few circumcised women report any problems from it, and if it really was harmful it would have died out by now, especially considering it’s women who are doing the circumcising.

   Female circumcision will never be stopped by promoting male circumcision. Circumcision of boys and girls is a psycho-sexual cultural disease, passed on from one mutilated generation to the next.

   Comment by Sirius — June 5, 2009 @ 11:07 PM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website