Talk:Female genital mutilation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Lee89894 (talk | contribs)
Dashoopa (talk | contribs)
→‎Health Benefits: new section
Line 111: Line 111:


Source about Russia's first trial on FGM: "''Zarema filed criminal charges, and the doctor who allegedly performed the operation is now on trial in a court in Magas. Proceedings against pediatric gynecologist Izanya Nalgiyeva began in December 2019 and have now restarted after being suspended because of coronavirus lockdown measures. Nalgiyeva is being tried for actual bodily harm, which means she could face a fine but not a prison sentence.''" [https://www.dw.com/en/russia-female-genital-mutilation/a-54134124] [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10|2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10|talk]]) 22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Source about Russia's first trial on FGM: "''Zarema filed criminal charges, and the doctor who allegedly performed the operation is now on trial in a court in Magas. Proceedings against pediatric gynecologist Izanya Nalgiyeva began in December 2019 and have now restarted after being suspended because of coronavirus lockdown measures. Nalgiyeva is being tried for actual bodily harm, which means she could face a fine but not a prison sentence.''" [https://www.dw.com/en/russia-female-genital-mutilation/a-54134124] [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10|2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10|talk]]) 22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

== Health Benefits ==

The claim that female genital mutilation has no health benefits does not appear to be supported by the medical literature. For example, some academic sources have noted in journals such as Medical Anthropology Quarterly and Journal of Medical Ethics benefits such as: "...lower risk of vaginal cancer and AIDS, less nervous anxiety, fewer infections “from microbes gathering under the head of the clitoris” [and] protection against herpes and genital ulcers’"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17937251/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348321843_Male_or_Female_Genital_Cutting_Why_'Health_Benefits'_Are_Morally_Irrelevant

It makes sense that if you cut off tissue, you will lower your risk of getting cancer in that area, and similarly, that you will be less likely to get infections.

Similarly, some studies have noted a reduction of risk in HIV:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265824402_Female_Circumcision_and_HIV_Infection_in_Tanzania_for_Better_or_for_Worse
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17642409/
https://quillette.com/2017/08/15/female-genital-mutilation-health-benefits-problem-medicalizing-morality/

This is not to minimize the harm of FGM as it is a severe bioethical violation and human rights abuse but it is inaccurate to claim that the practice has no health benefit, as any removal of body parts could be considered 'beneficial' in terms of health. As said earlier, tissue that has been excised can no longer host a cancer, become infected, or pose any other problem to its erstwhile owner. But as the bioethicist Eike-Henner Kluge has noted, if this logic were accepted more generally, “all sorts of medical conditions would be implicated” and we would find ourselves “operating non-stop on just about every part of the human body.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336952/

[[User:Dashoopa|Dashoopa]] ([[User talk:Dashoopa|talk]]) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:06, 23 March 2021

Featured articleFemale genital mutilation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 6, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KPeprah112 (article contribs).



Rooted in

Hi, the lede states that "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and beauty", but I can't find that treated in the article; iow., that sentence does not seem to do any job re summarizing the article. Surely there must be something in the sources? T 88.89.219.99 (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article and its sources are pretty much the source for that sentence. SarahSV (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thx for your answer. Maybe I'm taking "summarizing" too literally ...? The ideas of purity etc. occur several places is the article, but if you read it looking for gender inequality or control of sexuality, you never get to the "ah, there it is"-point; iow, it might have been made more explicit. What made me ask the question was actually that the article describes mainly women as those who uphold the practice and value of it. To a literal mind (...) that would seem as if women attempt to control women's sexuality, etc. To me, that seems a bit muddled, somehow; or at least it makes the article open to such a "literal reading", and I suspect that wasn't the intention. But anyhow, that's just me; if things are considered ok as-is, then fine by me. Just thought I'd mention it. T 88.89.219.99 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Female Genital mutilation

How many countries still practice this exercise? How many different religions require this? 67.234.7.138 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People's Personal Experience

Have you thought about looking at more research on how women feel about what happened to them? How they felt when it happened, after, and years after? Heather98psu (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really suitable for an encyclopedic article. Something might be added if there were a very reliable source that drew certain conclusions from research into people's personal experiences, but simply listing some examples would be original research due to cherry picking. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia on the map (FGM is banned)

The constitution of Somalia bans FGM.[1] It is possible to prosecute FGM under general provision of the law, so Somalia should be light green on the map (general criminal provision that might be used to prosecute FGM); here is a link about an (attempted) prosecution (problem with the prosecution was lack of cooperation from parents, not lack of legislative means). According to source: "Somalia does not have a law against FGM, but a senior CID officer interviewed in the film warned parents that it was still illegal. Legal experts say prosecutions could be brought under the Penal Code, which makes it an offence to cause hurt to another."[2] 2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

Russia should also be light green on the map:

Source about Russia's first trial on FGM: "Zarema filed criminal charges, and the doctor who allegedly performed the operation is now on trial in a court in Magas. Proceedings against pediatric gynecologist Izanya Nalgiyeva began in December 2019 and have now restarted after being suspended because of coronavirus lockdown measures. Nalgiyeva is being tried for actual bodily harm, which means she could face a fine but not a prison sentence." [3] 2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD10 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Health Benefits

The claim that female genital mutilation has no health benefits does not appear to be supported by the medical literature. For example, some academic sources have noted in journals such as Medical Anthropology Quarterly and Journal of Medical Ethics benefits such as: "...lower risk of vaginal cancer and AIDS, less nervous anxiety, fewer infections “from microbes gathering under the head of the clitoris” [and] protection against herpes and genital ulcers’"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17937251/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348321843_Male_or_Female_Genital_Cutting_Why_'Health_Benefits'_Are_Morally_Irrelevant

It makes sense that if you cut off tissue, you will lower your risk of getting cancer in that area, and similarly, that you will be less likely to get infections.

Similarly, some studies have noted a reduction of risk in HIV:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265824402_Female_Circumcision_and_HIV_Infection_in_Tanzania_for_Better_or_for_Worse https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17642409/ https://quillette.com/2017/08/15/female-genital-mutilation-health-benefits-problem-medicalizing-morality/

This is not to minimize the harm of FGM as it is a severe bioethical violation and human rights abuse but it is inaccurate to claim that the practice has no health benefit, as any removal of body parts could be considered 'beneficial' in terms of health. As said earlier, tissue that has been excised can no longer host a cancer, become infected, or pose any other problem to its erstwhile owner. But as the bioethicist Eike-Henner Kluge has noted, if this logic were accepted more generally, “all sorts of medical conditions would be implicated” and we would find ourselves “operating non-stop on just about every part of the human body.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1336952/

Dashoopa (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]