WOW. How about stop using that horribly flawed logic because it contributes to the excusing and normalizing of MGM.
How about ending ALL unnecessary genital cutting on ALL children, regardless of sex.
This sentiment explicitly confesses the belief that cutting a boy’s genitals is less immoral than cutting a girl’s, and if you believe that then you are truly disgusting sexist trash.
Wow Dawkins great idea and while you’re at it can you not use FGM to distract from and derail the campaign against MGM?
Genital cutting is genital cutting. Fuck wow I can’t believe this is a person tweeting this and not some kind of douche-quote robot.
I don’t see how his quote was bad. It’s not like he was claiming it didn’t exist. With the way people who advocate it are I’d like to keep the two separate so any campaign that advocates for both don’t end up into a” Well ours is more important then yours “debate.
Campaigns against male and female genital mutilation have been separate for decades. What’s been accomplished? Now we really don’t like that people in a few African countries practice FGM. It’s really terrible and we don’t like it, but nothing’s being done about any mutilation. What’s worse is that intersex people are getting left out by the way the campaign is currently structured.
So the way the issues are seen in mainstream society (e.g.; not activists) is as follows:
- "FGM is basically terrible and don’t do it. Some people somewhere do it I think they’re bad and must stop."
- "MGM? Don’t you mean circumcision? I don’t judge you if you do it. It has health benefits."
- "Involuntary gender reassignment for intersex people? What’s an intersex person?"
Genital mutilation is a gender-neutral problem. It affects everyone, and deserves more attention for all facets of it than it currently receives.
In a few African countries? That right there is the basis of my point.
You do know that circumcision is only popular in a few countries and is actually in the minority across the world?
They even say that there has been ground against circumcision in first world european countries.
Any social issues takes a long time to see major results. Having them separate isn’t going to take away from one or the other.
“‘So it doesn’t turn into an ours is more important than yours’ debate”?
-The quote is literally insisting the two causes be advocated separately because FGM is so much more important. How could saying “stop cutting children” possibly have an adverse impact on the movement to end FGM? How could saying “end forced genital cutting” possibly negatively effect a movement that aims to end forced genital cutting?? -Think about this.
Conversely, how could keeping them separate adversely impact the movement to end MGM?
-Well, FGM is punishable by imprisonment in the vast majority of countries. MGM is a multi-billion dollar industry that reaps profit not only from the medical procedure itself and associated products but from selling the amputated healthy foreskins for use in cosmetic products. Interesting ethical divergence, huh.
FGM advocates have done such a good job of distancing the gendered aspects of genital mutilation and demanding that FGM is blanketly and irreconcilably more damaging and traumatic than MGM that people scoff at the idea that MGM is even an issue.
Many FGM advocates even tout the supposed “benefits” of MGM in their efforts to present circumcision as a parenting choice that is medically supported and incomparable to FGM. These efforts ensure that nearly a full degree of magnitude more males experience forced genital cutting than females globally, which shows a huge success for the anti-FGM movement. The number of male and female victims should be closer, and certainly would be if not for people like Dawkins insisting that one must choose which effort to support. And with the insistence that FGM is an inherently worse issue, and that the movement to end it is damaged by advocating for all children, guess which one receives more support.
So you tell me how keeping them separate has adversely effected the movement to end MGM. Maintaining separate advocacy movements for what is the same issue is divisive and minimizes the efforts of anti-MGM advocates as we struggle to promote accurate information and non-gendered bodily autonomy. Maintaining separate movements based on the idea that one’s gender determines their worthiness of protection from harm is incredibly damaging and backward thinking.
Maintaining separate advocacy movements supports the current gendering of human rights that provides genital autonomy and protection from forced mutilation as female human rights protections while people like Dawkins yell at intactivists to stop derailing and distracting from THEIR movement. Once again defining genital mutilation as a female-only issue.
-Tell me how that could possible help.