Talk:Female genital mutilation

'Ritual' cutting?

Re opening sentence: "ritual cutting or removal" none of the sources used appear to use the word 'ritual' in defining FGM, and I'm not sure what it means in context. Non-medical? As part of "rites of passage'? Done for religious/cultural reasons? The term seems 'loaded' and clearer terminology would seem apt. (please ping if replying directly as I do not watch this page) Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "ritual" appears 8 times in the article (once in the lead with the rest in notes) so "none of the sources" seems unlikely. I doubt that any word or any sentence could encompass why FGM is performed but I regard "ritual" as merely having its ordinary English meaning. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The word isn't used in the sources attached to that sentence. Forgive my stupidity, but how the ordinary English meaning applies is not clear to me. The ordinary English meaning is probably "as part of religious rites" or "done in a ritualistic manner". Does 'cutting' become less mutilatory to WHO etc if it is done by white-coated people with no religious motive, simply mistaken science? Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually the word is used once in the article, the other 7 uses are in book titles. So the meaning - in this context - is not expanded anywhere in the article. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that the word isn't used in the sources but the word is used so often in the sources that it appears in the titles of the sources? A simple google search finds many, many sources that describe it as ritual, in the normal meaning of the term. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the meaning of the word is not made clear in the text and is not self-evident as the word has numerous uses (often as part of religious practice, "the ritual of sharing bread and wine", the "ritual slaughter of animals for halal/kosher meat" but also looser to mean 'habitual' or done in a repeated, systematic way "then began the daily ritual of getting ready for work", or sometimes something done in a ritualised ie quasi-religious fashion).

I guess that the meaning here is something like "usually done for cultural/religious reasons" or "done as part of a 'rites of passage' " - which are the most common reasons for this practice AFAIK, but if that is the meaning, why not say it?

My reason for posting was wanting clarity - but an indirect implication of the present phrasing is that if 'cutting' is done for non-ritual reasons, it ceases to be FGM - which is I suspect not the position of campaigners against the practice/health professionals etc - who I think would be equally against such cutting if the justification were 'hygiene' or some other non-religious reason and if it were done by a medical professional, rather than an 'elder'. Any 'cutting' that is not done for a recognised, explicitly medical reason, is surely FGM to most authorities?

My question is not mainly whether sources justify the use of the word (they may justify much stronger adjectives - "barbaric" etc.), but what useful information it conveys. Pincrete (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: your question, "Does 'cutting' become less mutilatory to WHO etc if it is done by white-coated people with no religious motive ...?", yes. The last section of the article explores some of the inconsistencies; see the paragraph beginning "The WHO does not define procedures such as". SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I did read that section, but the lead is pretty clear "Since 2010 the United Nations has called upon healthcare providers to stop performing all forms of the procedure, including reinfibulation after childbirth and symbolic "nicking" of the clitoral hood." So my point was valid - WHO, UN etc want to stop most of these procedures - not simply move them from crude backrooms into clean operating theatres. In so far as it is relevant, I would support them in that if I had the slightest influence. The last section you are referring to relates mainly to "cosmetic" or other "plastic", elective surgery, done for specified reasons, not simply because the person is female.

No replies have actually tackled my initial question - what does the word 'ritual' mean in context? Two replies imply that the meaning is self-evident? Not to me it isn't. If I am right about "done for cultural reasons" or "routinely done for non-medical reasons" or some-such, why not say that rather than a somewhat 'loaded' and fairly vague term?

BTW, of course I read the text next to the picture. Saying that some African people are resistant to a renaming 'imposed by others', is not quite the same thing as 'criticising' the rename. I grant you, she certainly isn't endorsing the name change either, but why she says this seems more informative than whether she approves/disapproves. Pincrete (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete, for the record, we did discuss "ritual" before; see Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 11#Misleading statement in the lead. I left it alone because it seemed somewhat okay to retain "ritual" and because of the infobox definition. Well, that, and I leave the article to Slim to handle. But as the discussion shows, I do see where you are coming from, and Johnuniq also considered if "ritual" was best. That stated, I also see where Slim is coming from. Other than what I stated back in 2014, I don't have anything else to state on the matter. If you reply, I ask that you don't ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

'Non-practicing country'?

What does it mean to be a 'practicing country' and a 'non-practicing country'? Isn't this a very arbitrary and misleading distinction? As far as I know, FGM is practiced in virtually every country, from negligeable to endemic. Wouldn't it be better to put it in relative terms rather than in absolutes? Does the literature give any rationale for the term 'non-practicing country'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, if you google FGM and the terms "practicing countries" and "non-practicing countries", you'll find sources, including medical/academic sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've restored File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2016.svg, the map based on UNICEF figures, and removed File:Composite FGM world map.svg. The latter seems to be original research, based on different types of sources, including news sources; it isn't clear why those countries were chosen or who calculated the percentages. The UNICEF map is based on nationally representative surveys. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction within page on prepuce (clitoral hood) reduction

In the #Comparison_with_other_procedures section, it is claimed that "The WHO does not define ... clitoral hood reduction as FGM". This is in direct contradiction with an earlier claim in the article (Classification/Types section), which is that there exists within WHO classifications the "cut, some flesh removed" category. And since there is also a less damaging category (Type IV) of FGM that includes nicking without flesh removal, it would stand to reason that prepuce reduction would also be included as either Type Ia or Type IV.

Furthermore, the source used for this claim that clitoral hood reduction is not considered FGM actually contradicts the claim(!) in the very first sentence where it states that FGM "refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia"...while at no point does the source mention clitoral hood reduction directly. For that matter, the source never makes any judgement on labiaplasty either, nor does it even use the term, but it does again define a less-damaging procedure (labia stretching) as a form of FGM.

I would suggest this sentence, and its source which does not support it, be removed.

73.3.116.105 (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you read the section, "Comparison with other procedures", or even the sentence that you partly quoted, it explains the situation: "The WHO does not define procedures such as labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction as FGM, but its definition aims to avoid loopholes, so several elective practices do fall within it." The section elaborates briefly and cites two researchers who have objected. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not taking issue with the claims of the section as a whole, but with its use of WHO as a source, which does not support it in the link given. I have gone to the linked Labiaplasty§Criticism article which is likely where this came from, and have made the same criticism. 73.3.116.105 (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)