Talk:Female genital mutilation

FGM, non-MEDRS Source, and Health

FGM is such an issue which is affecting life of many innocents in the name of faith. This issue need a complete new approach to handle it. In the name of faith, religion and nonsense issues politics is played and there is heavy loss to human beings. FGM is also a similar faith issue, which is playing menace.

Definitely FGM can be termed as cruelty to children, but it is harming them more if practice is not made under control and to perform FGM non scientific means are used. This issue need an open mind thorough discussion on subject making all the issues very clear to the communities where it is in practice.

There are no indication of effect of various control being used to abolish the practice. Legislation will never give any full proof solution in the matter of faith and people may find some other means , which may harm more. This is perfectly position on FGM.

When practice is legally acceptable for male with all surgical procedure used on children, as it is proven to be advantageous. Although many research is done on FGM, there are always some scope left when we see that even new elements and planets are discovered now and then. Restricting non MEDRS sources is restricting same as restricting thoughts and discussions, then how can further research can be initiated.

Our main aim should be to restrict dangerous practice in the way it is done, whatever approach we take. Wikipedian's views on this serious subject are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a paper published on the subject with Abstract:

"Despite 30 years of advocacy, the prevalence of nontherapeutic female genital alteration (FGA) in minors is stable in many countries. Educational efforts have minimally changed the prevalence of this procedure in regions where it has been widely practiced. In order to better protect female children from the serious and longterm harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia. We offer a revised categorisation for nontherapeutic FGA that groups procedures by effect and not by process. Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. However, accepting de minimis non-therapeutic f FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients." ...Paper: "Female genital alteration: a compromise solution" by: Kavita Shah Arora,1,2 Allan J Jacobs3[2].

This paper is very reliable and can be a guide line toward protecting innocent victims. Editors requested to put forward their views on inclusion of the ideas in this feature Article. --Md iet (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The paper is pushing a tiny-minority position, namely that removal of the clitoral hood (Type Ia), some form of excision (Type II), and ritual nicking (Type IV) should be permitted in countries that have criminalized FGM. There's no reason for us to expand the article with "some doctors have argued this or that". We would need sources that showed this was a significant-minority view among reliable sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It is pushing, dragging or, knocking any minority/ majority tiny/big position is not the issue but the main issue is whether rejecting this view altogether helping the cause? Banning and criminalizing the practice is not a solution to control the practice which is related with faith of people.

Faith religion is a such issue which better can be resolved through guiding the affected through proper channels. Women are affected because of this and they only are most rigid on following the faith. Men concerned many times even do not know of the existence of the practice in their family.--Md iet (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Further suggestion to tackle the issues pointed above is requested.--Md iet (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. From that, it follows that there will often be dissatisfied people who find that their edits are not retained. There is not much that can be done about that because once explanations have been given there is no point in repeating them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, the problem here is not of satisfaction but of solution. Comment as below is added to clarify the horrible situation prevailing on the subject topic:

"None availability of medically trained practitioner to the person who are unaware of FGM complication has worsen the situation. Some solution is to be found to unwanted side effects of the undesired."

This is deleted without giving any explanation. Comments?--Md iet (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

If there is no explanations for deletion / further comments/suggestions on my this inclusion, let me presumed it ok?--Md iet (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Interpreting what has happened on this page and in the edits at the article as "ok" would be a very big stretch. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Let us cover that BIG stretch to help victims not aware. Suggest solution.--Md iet (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting "Female Circumcision" page issues

1. The page "Female Circumcision" redirects to the FGM page. The problem with this redirecting is that it equates Female Circumcision = FGM. This is incorrect. Female Circumcision is a name given to a procedure/practice, and FGM is an umbrella term by the WHO, given for many (about 6) different procedure/practice from which female circumcision is one of them. Just like piercing is also a practice that comes under the FGM umbrella term. Therefore, Female Circumsiion ⊆ FGM (FC is a subset of FGM), not Female Circumcision = FGM.

2. This is further established by the WHO themselves who refer to Type 1a as female "circumcision" on page 2 of . Reference: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/management-health-complications-fgm/en/ WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation 3. Therefore, in order to be clear, I propose having a short description of "female circumcision", describing Type 1a clitoral hood procedure as per the WHO document. And then mention that the WHO considers this FGM. Below this, have a "see more" tab below it then linking it to the FGM page.

Muffizainu (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The above is based on an assumption that there is a clear and universal definition of each term. That is not correct. Some people think FGM is fine while others think otherwise, and different groups of people use words to mean what they want them to mean. An encyclopedia has to cover the general topic, based on the most reliable sources. Having another article would be a WP:POVFORK. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

When WHO refer some type with special designation then that should be treated as clear definition when WHO guidelines are treated as Bible for this major issue affecting children worldwide. The term need to be specifically clarified before redirected to general term.

FGM is referred in this article as "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision". When there is no 'clear and universal definition of each term', how come they equated in one go without giving any clarifications. -Md iet (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuing discussion on the Female Circumcision talk page, as the discussion is about that page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_circumcision Muffizainu (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There is only one topic, and that topic is covered in this article using WP:DUE material from reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq How is it one topic? When there are two terms?

FGM and Female Circumcision. One is a practice, and one is a term given to a collection of practices. And that is why the redirecting is problematic.

[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]]What exactly is your argument here? The FGM article uses a the term "FGM", solely because it was coined by the WHO. And here, i'm providing a citation that the WHO themselves called Type 1a "female circumcision". So what more information do you need? If it wasn't for the WHO, you wouldn't have the term "FGM".

If you're looking for more sources, look no further that the Britanica Dictionary. It calls the Islamic practice of Type 1a "FEMALE CIRCUMCISION"

https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd

https://www.britannica.com/topic/khitan-Islam

So, you have the WHO and a Dictionary statement.

Hence, what I propose is not to do a blanket re-directing. First clarify the term "Female Circumcision" according to the WHO guidelines and dictionary. They say that the WHO considers it amoungst one of the practices of FGM, and then have a "See more" tag to the FGM page. Muffizainu (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The term female circumcision is used to refer generally to female genital mutilation. It is also used to refer to Type Ia FGM, the removal of the prepuce only, which the World Health Organization says rarely happens alone. [3][4] (p. 25) That is, circumcisers who say they are performing Type Ia are usually doing something else. The WHO bases this information on surveys of women and of medical examinations in which women were found to have undergone more extensive cutting than they realized. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The one topic is the traditional cutting of female genitalia, and this article obviously covers that. An attempt to develop another article would be an assertion that there is a thing called female circumcision that is a different practice from that described in this article. Ultimately the issue would be resolved with an WP:AFD deletion discussion which I believe would result in the deletion of any WP:POVFORK from this article. Another approach would be to acknowledge that there has been no "female circumcision" article for several years. Is that likely to be accidental? Is it likely that a missing article related to this topic has somehow been overlooked? Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You just answered the question. WHO referes to FC as "the removal of the prepuce only". If something else is happening, then it can't be called "female circumcision", right? All the more reason the term "female circumcision" needs to be defined clearly. By providing the different definitions of the word from the communties that practice and and the WHO if you may.

@Johnuniq there isn't "another thing". FGM is an umbrealla term for multiple practices, and FC is one of those practices, and thus should have it's own article to describe what the practice is, just like Britanica does: https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd

And then give different explanations of the term "female circumcision".

Example, "Medicine" is a science/term, and dentistry is a practice that falls under that umbrella term. Make sense?Muffizainu (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Muffizainu, you read only part of my post. The term female genital mutilation includes what used to be called, and what some groups still call, female circumcision. Female circumcision is a category of FGM. It is a type of FGM. And (this is important), it is a type that the World Health Organization says is rarely performed. People who support FGM claim that it's all about a painless nick in the skin. As a matter of fact, that is not what normally happens, even when practitioners say that it is. That is one of the reasons that the term female circumcision is mostly avoided now. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I somewhat agree with your statement.

1) If you agree that "female circumcision" is a category or type of practice, then why shouldn't it have a separate page to describe the various definitions of the term "female circumcision" by various authorities, and also include the WHO's definition if you want - as one of those defintions. Everything doesn't need to revolve solely around the WHO's stance.

2) The term "FGM" was coined by the WHO, so, the FGM page can be limited to the WHO's stance on the subject.

Muffizainu (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It was the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children who started calling it female genital mutilation, in 1990, and the WHO then started using the term too. FC is not only a type of FGM (one rarely performed). It is also an equivalent term for FGM. More people use it to mean any and all types of FGM, than use it to refer to FGM Type Ia. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, You are perfectly right that FC is 'not only a type of FGM' but also an equivalent term for FGM'. Hence FC definitely is a type of FGM but it is used as equivalent term for FGM means FC definitely is not equal to FGM.

When FC has different specific characteristic as also defined by WHO then it is to be specifically clarified in Wikipedia when there exist a separate page on FC. If people refer all other type of FGM forcibly as FC doesn't mean that FC is not clarified at all for benefit of genuine.-Md iet (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FGM = FC definition incorrect or citation required

The first sentence of the article is incorrect because it says FGM is "also known as" female circumcision. FGM is an umbrella term by the WHO, where as FC is one practice that falls under the WHO's coined term. I have added a tag to confirm the defintion of FGM = FC. If not then then I propose it should be reworded.Muffizainu (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirginTerminology section doesn't refer to how FGM is also known as female circumcision. Please TALK or add suitable reference. You may want to refer to this article for a better idea on the term: https://www.britannica.com/topic/female-genital-cutting Muffizainu (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)