Talk:Female genital mutilation

FGM = Circumcision analogy

@Pincrete: @Johnuniq: @KlayCax: @MrOllie:

A user here added a section comparing circumcision to FGM, but the first resource in the article (Came across this from @KlayCax: on circumcision's talk. MrOllie also stated that analogies shouldn't be used.) states Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.Doesn't this mean that this analogy is rejected and shouldn't be included? It seems like there's an agreement that analogies between the two don't work? (Note that I'm biased. I converted to Reform Judaism as an adult and underwent circumcision. Presently, I am extremely shocked at the lack of current neutrality on the topic. It feels like people are pushing an agenda on the subject.) OntologicalTree (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete, KlayCax, and MrOllie: @OntologicalTree: Your ping did not work (diff) so I have redone it. To be successful, a notification must be in a new comment with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Medical authorities may reject such analogies and terminology, but that doesn't mean everyone does. I find the section informative and don't see why it should be removed. All sorts of cultural issues come into play iro FGM, and female cosmetic surgery, and, to a lesser extent (male) circumcision. I don't see how it is 'pushing an agenda' to record that such analogies have been made. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC) … ps I didn't check the sources used before posting this comment. Obviously, if they don't make the FGM/circumcision analogy, they shouldn't be used. The Dutch Med Ass below does make such an analogy, though of course not claiming equivalence and that would seem to justify such text (even if text has to be modified). Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources that this claim was based upon — AAP (2012), Frisch et al. (2013), AAP (2013), Freedman (2016) — never make an analogy between (male) circumcision and FGM. They simply state that there is a debate within the academic literature about the strength of its prophylactic effect in developed countries. Of the source within the article that does mention the topic: it (as OntologicalTree points out) states that The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision. As I previously stated on talk: It's true that there's been ethical discussion about the procedure. That's much different than saying they are analogous.

OntologicalTree. I think mentioning transgender-related topics is similarly WP: Undue and request a reversion of changes. I'm going to RFC if an agreement on this can't be reached. It shouldn't be in the article. KlayCax (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Royal Dutch Medical Association has compared and contrasted FGM with male circumcision. I’m pretty sure their viewpoint on FGM vs. circumcision used to be reflected in this article; we should consider re-adding it. Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that the present content seems to have removed most of the 'analogous' procedures, irrespective of the quality of sourcing. Most people would not wholly agree with many of these analogies, but if they have been competently framed, why exclude them? Also the present section title: Differentiation betweeen African, Western cosmetic procedures is both inaccurate and clumsy. The section isn't primarily noting differences between the two and FGM is not anyway solely African, nor recognised 'cosmetic' procedures inherently Western. It's hard to say what the present purpose of the section is - obviously it should not go too much off-topic to 'related' controversies, but I don't see why we should be excluding competent (especially medical) comparisons. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, it is perfectly WP:DUE to cover significant minority viewpoints. Comparisons between FGM & circumcision, and FGM & transgender genital cutting should be covered, FGM & Intersex Genital Mutilation comparisons should definitely be covered. Prcc27 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. An independent source free of cultural bias is far more valid than cultures perpetuating an act initially indocrinated without evidence and post-hoc justified with spurious studies. Hypocriticalreason (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Slow edit war

There seems to be a slow edit war here. See the recent page history. This is a Wikipedia:Featured article and this Wikipedia:FAOWN applies. The top editor who took it through reviews died; nevertheless FAOWN still applies, which states: Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. These are significant changes and need significant discussion. At this point I'm tempted to roll back to entire article to the version that went through review. In the least I'm rolling back the many changes and suggest strongly that we not deviate the original version's section Comparison with other procedures. Victoria (tk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The section is definitely WP:UNDUE now. The only comparison between FGM and circumcision in the article, is a pro-FGM one: “Carla Obermeyer maintains that FGM may be conducive to women's well-being within their communities in the same way that rhinoplasty and male circumcision may help people elsewhere”. The anti-circumcision/anti-FGM viewpoint is a significantly more prominent viewpoint than the pro-FGM/pro-circumcision one. The article used to give due weight to these viewpoints, but now it does not. Unless the article changes, I think we should add an UNDUE template, since the section is problematic. I also think it is problematic that MrOllie was pinged to this discussion, even though he was not involved in the mini edit war, but an involved editor (@Neveselbert:) was not pinged. Prcc27 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

(The above comment was made before I saw that you self-reverted yourself.) Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, didn't look closely enough at the history before reverting you and had to self-revert.

So the article went through review with a section called Comparison with other procedures. At some point that section acquired additional subheadings as seen in this last version by the primary author. That's the version we should be working from and gaining consensus. At this point I support reverting to 18 April 2021 version per WP:FAOWN. My suspicion is that the additional headers/subsections are an invitation to add more text. Given the way the TOC is formatted in V22 (those sections aren't visible) it's best to flatten the TOC as much as possible. That, at least would be a starting place. Victoria (tk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I share your concerns about adding too much text, this article is supposed to be about female genital cutting, not other types of genital cutting. Reverting to the original version would be UNDUE though per the reasons I gave above. However, the current version may also be UNDUE because it deviates too far from the main topic of the article. I would propose condensing the section, and we could agree to not add content that veers away from FGM. Would this address your concerns about too much text being added? Prcc27 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The best way of doing this is to start with the reviewed version/s. There's Wikipedia:Peer review/Female genital mutilation/archive2 that closed with this version. Then there was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive2 that passed with this version. SlimVirgin added the headers and rearranged the text, without substantial changes to it other than repositioning, here on 1 November 2018. I think that's our starting point, because it's an FA. I'd argue the headers aren't helpful, so if we can gain consensus to remove them, that's a first step. The next would be to look at the text itself, sentence by sentence (and, obviously the sourcing). Let's wait for others to chime in. There's no rush. Victoria (tk) 00:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be changed, updated, and improved upon. I don’t agree with reverting to an old version, based on a review from several years ago. The important thing for us to do, is to find a consensus. But yes, I do hope other users will share their thoughts. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

FGM in Somalia

Somalia is seeing a rise in female genital mutilation due to the lack of awareness of the consequences. The majority of the procedures are performed on preteen girls. There was an uptake in these fatal procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, shown with a direct correlation to the rise of girls dropping out of school.

“Female Genital Mutilation: A Daily Grim Reality for Girls in Somalia - Somalia.” ReliefWeb, 6 Feb. 2023, reliefweb.int/report/somalia/female-genital-mutilation-daily-grim-reality-girls-somalia. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. Polka365 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

Under the Terminology section, the below quote disengenuously represents the severity of multiple forms of what the WHO defines as female genital mutilation when compared to male genital mutilation (presented within the quotation using the euphimism of "circumcision").

"Until the 1980s, FGM was widely known in English as "female circumcision", implying an equivalence in severity with male circumcision."

Type IA of female genital mutilation is directly analgous to male genital mutilation. Multiple other forms of female genital mutilation as defined by the WHO are far less severe than male genital mutilation including all defined acts under Type IV. Hypocriticalreason (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 05:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No valid source for “this is rarely performed alone”

Under “types” it is stated that type Ia FGM is rarely performed alone, that is to say, it is typically performed congruently with type Ib. However, neither of the supposed sources provided corroborate this claim. Eliek1996 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Note [f] includes, "in very rare cases, only the prepuce" (prepuce = clitoral hood) and "this form appears to be relatively rare" and "Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself". That supports the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "1 in 3 girls undergo FGM in 31 countries"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

1 in 3 girls aged 15-19 living in 31 countries have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM)

The fact comes from the following source:

https://data.unicef.org/topic/gender/fgm/

Additional comments from user: While the exact number of girls and women worldwide who have undergone FGM remains unknown, at least 200 million girls and women alive today have been cut in 31 countries with representative data on prevalence.

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Laiasolagonzalez (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)