Tucker Carlson and Fuambai Ahmadu Make the Case Against Male Infant Circumcision

Well, well, well! Would you look at this! I guess I'm on a roll after a long hiatus. Who knows how long it will last? Well, I guess I might as well ride the wave while I'm at it.

I was surfing Facebook and I came across an old video I hadn't noticed before. Fox's Tucker Carlson was interviewing Fuambai Ahmadu and her advocacy for female genital cutting. According to YouTube, the video was put up on May 4, 2017, around the time the federal ban on FGM was lifted due to a court case in Detroit.

I'll embed the video here. Today is December 15, 2021 and I can still see the video as of today, so if you can't see the video anymore, it was probably taken down. See the video below.

I decided to watch the whole video, and I couldn't help but notice that basically these two are making the case against male infant circumcision in the United States.

I think this back-and-forth perfectly illustrates the male infant circumcision slash female circumcision debate and how it usually goes down in this country because people are committed to the narrative that ignores and protects their cognitive dissonance.

I decided to type up a transcript of the whole thing and post it here. (I'm afraid there are some things that I couldn't quite hear clearly, please forgive me)

I'll be inserting my own commentary; if you want to hear the argument without any commentary, please feel free to watch the video.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

Fuambai Ahmadu:
"I don't defend FGM. I don't mutilation. I would never defend the mutilation of anybody. I don't identify with the term 'mutilation.' I don't know anybody in my family who does, or my community. From over 25 years of research I've done on this field, I would say the great majority of women who are affected by what I call female circumcision practices do not see themselves as mutilated. I think we need to start interrogating how we use that terminology."

I'd like to draw a parallel here; she sounds precisely like an advocate for male infant circumcision. People who advocate and support cutting the genitals of boys never think it's "mutilation" and they feel "insulted" that anyone ever referred to what they do as such. Well THEY don't do "mutilation," it's those other people who do it. We're the innocent ones. And I think this is where the whole trouble of "female genital cutting is mutilation" begins, because the point is not actually to decry mutilation; if it were, we would talk about the elephant in the room, and we would have to talk about the very practice one is defending. In my opinion, the whole point of decrying genital cutting as it occurs in girls as "mutilation" is to diverge attention to the practice one wishes to defend. If "that other" thing is "mutilation," what we do is perfectly fine.

Tucker Carlson:
"I almost don't want to specify what it refers to because it's upsetting, but it's the removal of a kind of key female sex organ in a lot of cases and this is being done to girls who obviously can't give consent, and it affects them for life."

Notice here the arguments that Carlson is putting forward, because it will get him in the end.

He has a problem with cutting girls because they can't give consent, and it affects them for life.

The same is irrefutably and demonstrably true for male infant circumcision. The biggest problem any intactivist have with male infant circumcision are, as you can read throughout my entire blog is, consent, and the fact that a man has to live with the outcome, adverse or benign, for the rest of his life.

Ahmadu:
"This is why I think we DO need to have a discussion on what IT is. When we use the term "female genital mutilation, automatically a certain image comes to mind, an image that has been put out there for over 30, 40 years in the mainstream media through activists, efforts and women's groups. It's the idea of the most horrific of procedure, which is Type 3, the WHO's classified this as type 3 infibulation, that involves the suturing and sowing up of the labia majora. This is a very rare procedure that is confined, basically, to a specific part of sub-Sahara Africa, the horn of Africa. It makes up less than 10% of the entire prevalence of the procedures in sub-Sahara Africa and across various parts of the world.

A case I've made on here on several posts already (scroll to the bottom for links to other posts I've written on this subject).

Ahmadu is engaging in a classic tactic that advocates of male infant circumcision turn to, and that's blaming it all on the media and the negative image it has given it. It is forceful cutting of a healthy, non-consenting child, but that's not the problem; it's the negative attention it has garnered.

Can you imagine pedophiles arguing that nothing is wrong with what they do; it's the negative image the media and others have given them and they're being oppressed?

Actually, in the case of male infant circumcision, it's quite the opposite; for the past century it's been presented as this good and wonderful and harmless and "medically beneficial" thing.

We need to understand that over 90% of what we call 'female circumcision' involves what WHO classifes as Types 1, and that's divided up into types A and B, and Types 2, A and B as well. So for instance, the Dawoodi Bohra case that has become quite talked about in recent weeks with the doctor, the female doctor, Dr. Nagarwala I believe, in Michigan, their community, their Shia Muslim, you know, quiet community here in the United States, their community performs, first of all they perform circumcision on boys, we'll get to that in a moment, and they perform Type 1 A circumcision, which is a nick, a nick of the prepuce, the foreskin of the clitoris."

Exactly. She's on point.

Advocates of male infant circumcision would like people to believe that female genital cutting is "much, much worse" without actually ever making comparisons. The argument usually goes something like this:

Male infant circumcision advocate:
"Female infant circumcision is so much worse."

Skeptic:
"So let's discuss it."

Male infant circumcision advocate:
"How dare you compare them! You just can't! So don't!"

I'm SO glad to see a woman discussing this; I'm usually shut down because I'm male. Well, here is an actual woman who has undergone so-called "FGM."

Carlson:
"That is not actually what is illegal as far as I understand. What I understand is the removal of an entire portion of the female sex organ without the consent of the child. Now, you underwent this as an adult; there's a quantum difference between making a decision to do something like that, and having that decision made for you that cannot be reversed as a child. That seems to me, probably the worst thing you can do to a child."

 

Here again, Carlson brings up the elephant in the room when it comes to male infant circumcision; the consent of the person involved for a decision that cannot be reversed. This is precisely it, Tucker! You've got it!

Ahmadu:
"OK, so back to the case of the Dawoodi Bohra doctor who is now in prison waiting trial, she is accused, she's charged with FGM, mutilating 7yo girls , he performed nicks, nicks, Type 1 A to the clitoral foreskin. (Carlson tries to interrupt) But it's really important because what's happened it's the activists who have made the term female genital mutilation they've conflated it with all these different practices..."

 

Yes! It's a nick! So small! And she's completely right. This shouldn't be a problem. Not if it's OK to slice off a chunk of flesh from a child's penis.

Carlson:
"Some of these activists are victims of the practice itself. And we've interviewed them on this set. And they have said this has affected my life and my happiness, and my ability to experience happiness in a profound way, and it's totally barbaric, and guess I don't buy the 'hey it's a different culture,' well so is throwing widows on the pyre, and it's still wrong."

 
Tucker sounds like he could be on the intactivist team! Except when Fuambai actually throws his own logic in his face.

Yes, Tucker. "It's a different culture" shouldn't justify slicing parts of children's genitals without their consent. You are right on the money.

Ahmadu:
"...and I absolutely agree with you, Tucker, but there's one thing I want to correct. You've said it removes a vital part of the female genital anatomy, alright? And is it OK to say if I actually that part is? Because there's a misconception about actually, you know, what these surgeries entail. There is no female circumcision procedure that removes the clitoris of a woman. It is absolutely impossible to remove a woman's clitoris without killing her. What is exposed is a tiny fraction of what is actually an extensive organ.

Again. Fuambai is on point.

And here too is an argument that male infant circumcision advocates like to use; the foreskin isn't a VITAL part of man's anatomy, is it? Since it isn't "vital," then it should be OK for parents to have doctors remove it in their children. After all, they can still have fulfilling lives, sexual or otherwise, what's the real "harm?"

This argument works in the case of female genital cutting. If it's not actually removing anything "vital," what's actually wrong with it? Why can't parents choose to have doctors do this? It's the same argument.

Carlson:
"I'm going to stop you there and before we get too into it, I'm gonna just... lemme just say... (he's interrupting) Would you concede, because there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not imposed on six year olds? Is that fair?"

(Clap, clap, clap...) BRAVO, Tucker. Bravo.

Now if only you could agree to carry this argument through its logical conclusion...

Ahmadu:
"Well here's what I think. There are a lot of men, right? ...who have experience male infant circumcision who say that this is mutilation. In fact, in the courtroom, when Dr. Nagarwala appeared in court, there were protesters outside they were not anti-FGM protesters...

Jesus Christ! Who's side is this Fuambai woman on?

Intactivists could easily confuse her as one of our own.

She's completely right.

The one thing that I would have to say to this is that far from being an "experience," a lot of men have graphic evidence that circumcision has indeed harmed them, because their procedures resulted in severe deformity of their organs. It is verifiably, objectively true that, to many men, circumcision has resulted in "mutilation" as defined by opponents of FGM.

Of course, in my book, unless there is medical or clinical indication, slicing ANY part of a healthy, non-consenting person's body off is "mutilation."

Carlson:
(Interrupts again) But that's not an argument for female circumcision...

 
Tucker, yes it is. Readers, scroll back up. Did he, or did he not bring up that "there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not imposed on six year olds?"

Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, Tucker.

Ahmadu:
"What I'm saying is, you're saying to me that there are opponents to female circumcision...

Carlson:
"Look as you know, there's a lot of research, and I don't want to get into the circumcision debate on men, but there is research that shows that there are profound medical advantages in that, there is no research that shows there's any medical advantage in female genital mutilation.

 
Classic.

Notice here how his own argument of consent and letting adults make their own decision flies right out the window...

Ahmadu:
"First of all, that research is contested. There's a lot of research that shows that yes there IS harm, there IS risk. There are over a hundred deaths, a hundred deaths each year from male circumcision.

 
THIS WOMAN! Fuambai, you're an intactivist!!!

Carlson:
"Look, I don't want to... that's... that's a separate show... and I'm open-minded but, but, but what you're doing is not making...

Poor Tucker... walked into his own trap on this one...

Ahmadu:
"You're saying we're abusing girls...

That's what he said, Fuambai...

Carlson:
"But that's like saying... you know we can't ban weed because beer is legal... it's two separate arguments..."

Talk about attacking a straw man... what does weed and beer, two substances that adults choose to take out of their own accord, have to do with the arguments at hand, that of the severity of genital cutting and the consent of the individual...

Ahmadu:
"You are accepting that it is OK to perform a much more intensive or, invasive procedure on boys...

 
When she dies, Fuambai Ahmadu needs to be made an intactivist saint...

Carlson:
"No, I'm not accepting that I'm just saying that this is bad to do to little girls it's pretty simple...

But OK to do to little boys...

Ahmadu:
"I disagree. I think that if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender inclusive genital surgery.

 
BINGO.

Carlson:
"Well I just don't want it in my culture, in my society, I guess it's what it all comes down to."

As his society mutilates 1.4 million boys annually...

Ahmadu:
"So what, it's OK to cut BOYS in your society?"

 
YOU GO, GIRL!!!

Carlson:
"I'm just saying I don't want THIS. I think it's awful."

 
Yes to this, but no to that.

The words "ad hoc" and "special pleading" come to mind...

Ahmadu:
"Well we don't in our culture we don't discriminate. You know, we have gender egalitarian surgeries. We do not discriminate."

Carlon:
"We're out of time I feel that we could finish the hour... I'd probably die of embarrassment but thank you very much..."

Ahmadu:
"You're welcome."

Poor Tucker... clearly here tripping over his own arguments, and clearly his attacking the straw men of beer and weed isn't working and he can't stand it so he's got to end the segment...

But see, neither of them is wrong. They're both absolutely correct.

Both of these individuals make the case as to why forcibly cutting the genitals of boys, and girls, is wrong.

Tucker Carlson, quite rightly so, points out that this is a decision that needs to be made by consenting adults, and he makes no exception for culture. He says "I don't want this in my culture," but then recoils when he is faced with the fact that his own culture already accepts the forcible cutting of minors.

Fuambai Ahmadu is on point when she talks about gender egalitarianism and non-discrimination, albeit in the wrong direction. She's right though.

"..if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender inclusive genital surgery."

Absolutely on point.

However, conversely, if we oppose it in American society, the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting girls without their consent, regard for culture or religion, then the same should be true of the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, regardless of culture, religion or otherwise.

Though it's on Fox, I thought this was an excellent interview and an excellent representation of how the circumcision debate usually goes, with the absolute meltdown when male and female genital cutting is discussed in the the same breath, the refusal to acknowledge that they are the same issue.

Spot on.

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

 

REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

 

Anne Rice, Willfully Ignorant Male Genital Mutilation Apologist Dies

 

Recently I ran across news that Anne Rice has finally kicked the bucket at 80.

And good riddance.

I couldn't stand how she threw children and men under the bus to pander to her feminist base and boost her book sales.

As more advocates of male genital mutilation croak, the world becomes a better place for current and future generations.

Fuck her.

Fuck anyone who insists on continuing to push the false narrative that "male and female circumcision aren't the same" and that men have all the attention when it comes to genital mutilation and that men attempt to "shove women to the back of the bus" in this regard.

It's feminists and anti-female genital mutilation activists and organizations that hog the limelight and piss on the rights of boys and men.

To push the narrative that "men bring up male circumcision while women suffering genital mutilation struggle to find a voice" as countless organizations dedicate themselves to raise awareness of FGM in Africa as they ignore boys and men who die in circumcision initiation rituals has got to be the ultimate misandrist grift.

Ding dong the witch is dead.

I can't wait until all willfully ignorant advocates of male genital mutilation die out.

Then the world will be a better place for ALL.

Willfully ignorant misandrist bitch.

Related Posts:
ANNE RICE: Misandrist Attention Whore

EDGAR SCHOEN: America's Circumcision Champion Dies

 

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

 

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

External Links:
Anne Rice, author of Interview with the Vampire, dies aged 80

DETROIT: FGM Now Legal in US

I had been following the Detroit FGM court case (see related posts below), and it seems the case has finally reached it's conclusion:

According to The Detroit News, the most serious remaining charge against the doctor accused of FGM has been dropped, adding the final nail in the coffin for the federal ban on FGM of 2006.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised at the results.

I knew it would end like this.

Americans would rather sacrifice the rights of baby girls on the altar of "religious freedom" rather than bring that elephant in the room, the forced genital cutting of baby boys that happens 3,000 times a day, into question.

I'm not going to comment long like I usually do.

I'm just going to close with the statements and questions I usually ask:

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical surgery, on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors be performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

Much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How far are doctors expected to comply with "parental decisions?"

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

(Exact statistics on either male or male infant circumcision are unknown because those who perform them do not collect or report them, and governments do not require them to because they want to avoid being seen as "infringers of religious freedom.")

How is any of this conscionable given that male infant circumcision is non-medical, non-therapeutic?

Rough times lie ahead, but I am confident in that the truth cannot be hidden long.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all." ~Sophocles

Perhaps this decision being handed down during the current coronavirus scare was strategic; people are distracted by the current pandemic.

But it doesn't matter.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. During wartime it takes longer."--Sheila Steele

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Intactivists had been watching this case closely. We knew that what was riding on this case, what the possible outcomes, and what their implications were. We knew that whatever the outcome would be, it would be a landmark decision, and progress in the fight for basic human rights.

A year ago on June 2, 2017, I asked the question:

How far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

This was it; the one case that would finally address this question.

Either "religious freedom" and "parental choice" could be used to justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or it could not.

You cannot have it both ways.

Recapitulation

In March, 2017, one Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged with performing female genital cutting on two girls from Minnesota on February 3rd, 2017, at a Livonia clinic owned by one Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. She had been doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, would have faced life in prison for violating the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996.

This was, unless, the doctor could prove that what she did wasn't "mutilation," but "benign religious procedure," which she and her defense lawyers were already trying to allege, or unless the federal ban could somehow be thwarted, since, under the ban, all cutting of female genitals, great or small, constitutes "mutilation."

The outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications, particularly in the case of another alleged "benign religious procedure."

Readers know what I'm talking about; male infant genital cutting.

Who was on the case, and why would it matter?
Who the doctor's defense lawyers were is important to note because it would appear that they had personal stake in the matter.

Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired by Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth had represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases, including O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish, and Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

This is important because male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism, and it has been a highly contested practice for the past two millennia.

A negative outcome in a case against a physician performing non-medical genital cutting in children at the request of religious parents would mean the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

Of course, the defense of a client is the duty of any lawyer, but for these lawyers, the outcome would mean a bit more, and so they would see to it that it would result in a favorable one for them.

Religious Freedom or Basic Human Rights?
A year ago, I said that the outcome of this decision would be a landmark decision either way.

On the one hand, upholding the federal ban on FGM would mean a loss for this doctor, and it would mean not only that what she did was illegal, it also meant that the legality of Jewish circumcision would be brought into question.

It would mean that parents couldn't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under the cloak of "religious freedom."

On the other hand, a landmark win would mean  a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision would remain unquestioned.

A year ago, I also warned that such an outcome might result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 being struck down, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.

Today, we read about the outcome of this case.

History Made
So what was it going to be?

The protection of "religious freedom?"

Or the protection of basic human rights?

For all people?

The powers have decided "religious freedom" must be protected at all costs.

On November 10 of this year (2018), the charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala were dismissed, precisely because the judged declared the federal ban against FGM "unconstitutional."

The judge deciding this was none other than US District Judge Bernard Friedman.

US District Judge Bernard Friedman

I must say, with a name like "Friedman," I'm really not surprised.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the unstated reasons the judge ruled this was precisely to protect male infant circumcision.

Intactivists would have wanted the federal ban on female genital mutilation to be struck down on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but it was struck down on the grounds that genital mutilation is said to lie outside the scope of federally regulated interstate commerce instead. 

But to me, it really doesn't really matter; those who wanted to prevent a legal precedent that would invalidate "religious freedom" and thus place male infant circumcision under scrutiny from occurring, found a way to invalidate the Female Genital Mutilation Act, just as I predicted they would do a year ago.

I have always said, and continue to say this; either religious freedom and parental choice can be used to justified the forced cutting of genitals of children, or it cannot. It can't be had both ways.

The Ramifications of This Decision
I don't know about other intactivists, but I for one, welcome this decision.

Either decision would have been progress for our movement, because either decision would result in questioning "religious freedom" and "parental choice" sooner or later. However, I believe we couldn't have wished for a better outcome.

Had the judge upheld the federal FGM ban, it would have merely prolonged the grace period for male infant circumcision. The fact is that most, including activists against female genital mutilation, would laud the decision as the "correct" one, and life would have continued business as usual.

The fact is that striking the federal ban against FGM down is going to get people's attention; I don't think campaigners against FGM are going to be happy. There is going to be hell to pay.

Perhaps this judge inadvertently gave this conversation a push in the right direction.

The topic of the extent of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" is going to be a lightning rod for conversation.

In the past, activists against FGM and advocates of male infant circumcision alike were able to dismiss the topic "because they're not the same." Still others would hem and haw and hoped that the conversation would just go away.

Dismissing and ignoring is no longer a choice.

Sitting on the fence is no longer an option.

We intactivists have been saying for years that laws against FGM would not stand unless male infant circumcision were addressed. We were attacked by FGM activists for it. Now, exactly what I and others have predicted has come to pass.

This decision has propelled this topic from its usual position as the elephant in the room, to the forefront of conversation.

It can no longer be said that "male and female are not the same," because thanks to this legal precedent, male and female forced genital cutting are on the same tier.

The firewall between male and female forced genital cutting has been officially knocked down.

Anti-FGM groups will now have a decision to make; either recognize basic human rights for both boys and girls, or watch their movement crash and burn.

The conversation can no longer be dismissed on the grounds that the forced cutting of one sex is more or less "severe" than the other, because that's neither here nor there.

Either "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" justifies the forced cutting of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting children or it does not.

Ultimately the question is this:

What is more important?

"Religious freedom and/or "parental choice?"

Or basic human rights?

You cannot have it both ways.

We are going to have to choose once and for all which it will be.

What's it going to be, FGM activists?

What's it going to be, world?

Knock-knock!

Reality is here.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Link:

Detroit Free Press: Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

ICELAND: Parliament May Cave to Pressure to Call Off Circumcision Restrictions

Not too long ago, I posted on the latest bill in Iceland to restrict circumcision to consenting adults.

Circumcision advocates want to call it a "ban," but if putting an age limit on circumcision is a "ban," then alcohol is "banned" in the United States.

Oh no! What to do. Children can't buy beer and those who sell or buy it for them are defying the law!

There are also laws against sex with minors, which means there's a "ban" on sex too!

Or freedoms are being taken away! Oh noes!

Well anyway, according to Arutz Shevah, Israel National News, Iceland is "dropping" the ban.

I mean, measure.

Well, not quite yet, but it seems it's getting there.

According to the article linked above, parliament’s judicial committee recommended against its passage.

That doesn't exactly mean the measure has actually been "dropped" yet, parliament has yet to make a decision.

Also, a rabbi breaks Godwin's Law by invoking Hitler.

"The Nazis enacted such a law in 1933 and we know how it ended," Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the CER, said at a conference in Iceland organized by Protestant and Catholic European groups.

There are laws against female circumcision. How have those ended?

I think the world will be better off once male infant genital mutilation is banned, and the practice is relegated to the trash bin of history where it belongs.

But as I said in my last post, I don't think that day is today, and when that measure does fail, people should not be surprised. I think there are alternative solutions that would satisfy both parties, and those ought to be pursued instead.

Intactivists have a long road ahead of them.

Related Links:

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: An Alternative to a Ban?

TWITTER REPLY: "Female Circumcision Keeps Us Clean Down There"

Female genital cutting, known as "sunat," is common in South East Asia

I recently posted the following Tweet:

Women who raise a stink about smegma in intact men act like their uncircumcised vulva smells like raspberries and cream. How dare they balk at intact men when their vulva is a disaster zone 7 days out of the month anyway.

— Joseph Lewis (@Joseph4GI) March 3, 2018

And, what seems to be a female Muslim woman's profile, replied with this:

That is why we Muslim women support female circumcision. It keeps us clean down there pic.twitter.com/lQWTgujIKi

— Kubra Jawher (@Sithy321) March 3, 2018

I think this should serve to highlight the dangers of condemning the forced genital cutting of one sex, but condoning it in the other.

There is this firewall between female genital cutting and male genital cutting, where, at least until now, ne'er the twain shall meet, but this coming back to bite anti-FGM groups in the pussy. (Did I just say that?)

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and as long as male infant circumcision can be defended "because it's cleaner," "because studies says it prevents disease," leaves the door open for female infant circumcision advocates to defend female genital cutting using the same pretexts.

Either religion, "parental choice," and/or "research" justifies the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

As long as anti-FGM advocates want to have this firewall up between FGM and MGM, then they fight a losing battle.

THIS is the shit they're going to be up against; a mirror image of themselves.

Related Post:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

It's been a while since I've written, and I don't have time to write a post dedicating the time and effort that this issue deserves, so I'm going to make this quick.

The long and the short of it is that there is a ban on circumcision being talked about in Iceland, and predictably, religious groups, those who practice the forced circumcision of non-consenting boys and some who don't, are clutching their pearls.

The bill rightly describes the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors to be a violation of basic human rights, and suggests a 6-year prison term for anyone found guilty of "removing sexual organs in whole or in part."

There is an exception in the bill for medical necessity, which is actually how all other surgery works; under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Addressing religious traditions, it insists the "rights of the child" always exceed the "right of the parents to give their children guidance when it comes to religion."

The move follows advice from doctors in Denmark, who have said boys under the age of 18 should not be circumcised; the Danish Medical Association said it had considered suggesting a legal ban on the procedure for children.

Backlash From Religious Advocates
As almost anyone would have guessed, the move to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting males is already being condemned as "an attack on religious freedom."

One of the first critics of the proposal actually came from the President of the Catholic Church in the European Union.

“Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case this concern is instrumentalized, without any scientific basis, to stigmatise certain religious communities. This is extremely worrying,” Marx said in a statement.

It is interesting that he cites lack of "scientific basis," seeing as religious groups circumcise as a matter of religious conviction, which has zero to do with science.

I should also inquire about the validity of his claim, whether he has a degree in urology, pediatrics, surgery or even in medicine at all.

The reality of the situation is that not a single respected medical organization recommends the practice of forced male infant circumcision.

All of them, including our very own AAP, cite that "the benefits are not great enough."

Not surprisingly, Muslim and Jewish groups are already condemning this as an attack on their religious freedom.

We've been here before

7 Years ago, a similar ban was proposed in San Francisco, and although it was put on the ballot, religious groups made enough noise to have it struck off before anyone could even vote on it.

In a rare display of alliance, Jewish and Muslim groups actually coalesced, cooperated and spoke unanimously against the ban. I don't think they quite agree that female circumcision should be protected as "religious freedom," however.

Which brings us to the crux of why there is a problem with a lack of a ban on male infant circumcision to begin with.

Sexist, self-serving double-standards
Mention male infant circumcision, and it seems to be this given; that suggestion that it should be banned is "an attack on religious freedom."

Mention that female infant circumcision is seen as a religious obligation, and suddenly the "religious freedom" argument flies out the window.

In most Western countries, the forced genital cutting of girls and women is banned, and there is no exception for people who see it as a religious conviction.

Actually, there will be no shortage of people saying that since female circumcision isn't written in say, the Koran or any major holy book, that it can't "really" be considered "religious."

The term "special pleading" comes to mind.

Male circumcision wouldn't be mentioned in the Koran either.

It is "fitrah," mentioned in Hadith, but not once does it appear in the Koran.

Which is funny, because the same is also true for female circumcision.

I think it's funny, that self-serving people who want to justify their own "religious tradition" of forcibly cutting the genitals of boys have the nerve to pretend to dictate to others what their religious beliefs will be.

For better or for worse, the great majority of Muslims in South East Asia believe that female circumcision is as Islamic a virtue for girls and women as male circumcision is for boys and men.

And who are others to tell them what their beliefs will be?

If Jewish scholar Leonard Glick is correct, male infant circumcision as a "covenant" does not appear in the first manuscripts of the Torah; it would appear that this mitzvah was grafted out of the blue at the very last minute. The case can be made that "male infant circumcision wasn't originally part of the covenant."

Ah, but then Jewish defenders of the practice will turn around and say "Non-Jews shouldn't tell Jews how to practice their religion."

Isn't it funny how the same people  say "Well female circumcision isn't actually Muslim practice," will turn around and tell you to mind your own business when you dare scrutinize their religion?

The bottom line
It boils down to this; either "parental choice," "religious freedom" and/or "my culture/tradition" works to justify the forced genital cutting of children, or it doesn't.

It is inconsistent and sexist to have a ban that protects girls and only girls, regardless of the religious conviction of their parents, but allow the forced genital cutting of boys "for religious reasons."

The forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors needs to be allowed, or condemned for all.

You can't have it both ways.

A long way to go
I end this post by saying that, while I think there ought to be a ban, that if there is a ban on female genital cutting with no exception for religion, it only follows there needs to be a similar ban for male genital cutting, it's simply unrealistic and it's going to backfire.

Recall the attempt to ban forced male infant circumcision in San Francisco; not only were religious groups successful in getting the measure off the ballot before anyone could cast their vote, opportunist politicians also made names for themselves by legally preventing any further attempts at a ban.

Female circumcision was easily banned in Western countries because people already saw female circumcision with disdain.

At the moment, most people simply don't see forcibly cutting a healthy, non-consenting male child's genitals as a big deal.

It is often said that in a huge movement like this, laws are the very last thing to change.

During the times of slavery, when there were calls to outlaw the practice, those who wanted to continue to keep slaves, doubled-down on their intentions and enacted legislature that "protected" their "rights."

People who are hell-bent on preserving this practice of forced genital cutting are not going to give up without a fight.

But it's going to take time to get people on our side and finally legally condemn the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors.

I predict that the measure in Iceland is going to fail.

Icelandic leaders are going to cave to pressure to "protect religious freedom."

But this should be of no surprise, and it should in no way be used to measure our progress as intactivists.

That this measure is actually being considered is progress enough.

Even if this measure fails, we shouldn't be discouraged, I'm not going to be discouraged; I'm still going to be right here speaking out against the basic human rights violation that is the forced genital cutting of minors.

Related Posts

San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

LEGISLATION: A Possible Solution?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Self-Serving FGM Myths That Persist

It's been a while, and I was thinking a post on my blog is long overdue. Believe it or not, your blogger does have a life outside of intactivism; a family to raise, bills to pay, a job to be at. I really wish I had more time to dedicate to this, as I believe it to be a worthy cause.

At any rate, this post was touched off by a recent private message war on Facebook.

It seems that people that both defend the forced circumcision of males, but oppose the forced circumcision of females have an arsenal of canned responses that they're ready to fire off at any given moment. Furthermore, it seems that they haven't given these responses much thought, for upon further investigation, one can see the logical fallacies in their arguments.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same person can present an argument in favor of male infant circumcision, but for whatever reason, the same argument fails when used in favor of female circumcision, and vice versa, an argument used against female circumcision that would also work against male circumcision, but for whatever reason, doesn't apply.

One can witness male circumcision apologists trying their hardest to have it both ways, going through mental gymnastics to make their arguments work.

I shall talk about the points raised in my latest exchange on Facebook Messenger without naming any names to save the person embarrassment.

"Americans do not practice barbaric, pointless practices that leave females in pain for the rest of their lives like genital mutilation also commonly called "female circumcision"."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:

• Male infant circumcision isn't barbaric
• Male infant circumcision isn't pointless
• Female circumcision always results in pain for the rest of their lives
• Only forced female genital cutting can be euphemised with the word "circumcision"

This statement is rather flawed, because it relies on a straw-man argument. FGM is "barbaric and pointless mutilation" because it "it leaves females in pain for the rest of their lives."

While FGM does have disastrous results in some cases, this simply isn't true for most women. Even the WHO acknowledges that there are varying degrees of severity for FGM, and that the worst form of FGM, also known as "infibulation," or "pharaonic circumcision," is actually the rarest. A New York Times article says it is as low as 15%. Actually, most women in Africa who have been circumcised don't complain, according to Catania and Johnsdotter. The majority of women in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are circumcised, and, like American parents regarding male circumcision, they don't see what the big deal is.

A circumcised African woman sounding off

A circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind

This is important to point out, because some of the biggest arguments that advocates use to justify the forced genital mutilation of boys in America are that:

• Boys don't remember what happened to them as infants
• Adult men don't complain
• Adult men enjoy sex (the converse argument being that circumcised women don't)

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same argument that would justify male infant circumcision would justify female infant circumcision, but it somehow just doesn't, or people would rather continue to belief myths that simply aren't reality, because what is true for adult circumcised in America, is true for adult circumcised women in say, Malaysia, Indonesia and countries in Africa.

So it must be asked.

Is pain and/or whether or not it can be remembered in adulthood what makes the forced genital cutting of minors "barbaric, pointless mutilation?"

Is pain and whether or not it can be remembered the issue here?

The fact is that most men weren't circumcised as infants. That's an American or Jewish phenomenon. Most men who are circumcised in the world are circumcised at later ages, when they can remember what is happening to them. I don't hear anyone decrying the fact that scores of men die yearly in initiation rituals in Africa.

A girl is circumcised in Bandung, Indonesia

"BARBARIC AND POINTLESS MUTILATION!"

A boy is circumcised in the same city.

"Nothing to see here... He can still have sex. It's OK."

On with the next part of my exchange:

"If male circumcision was anything like this female "circumcision" practiced in parts of the world, they would have their entire penis removed and not just a flap of skin that can get constricted later in life."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:

• Female circumcision is all one and the same
• All female circumcision completely removes the equivalent of the entire penis
• The foreskin in males is merely a flap of skin that can and usually always does, get constricted later in life
• The potential for problems is enough to justify the removal of a body part

Even the WHO recognizes that there are varying degrees of severity of female circumcision, and that not all remove the clitoris, which the person wants to equate here, with the entire shaft of the penis. As I have already said above, the worst kind of FGM is actually the rarest form.

The question then becomes, would FGM variations that are as severe, or even less severe than male circumcision as it is justified in the United States, be justified?

Is FGM justified so long as it is as severe, or less severe than male infant circumcision as we know it?

I invited the person arguing with me to look at this paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, where authors propose just that. Not too long ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) itself tried to justify what they called a "ritual nick."

The fact of the matter is that, even in the most severe cases of FGM, it is simply impossible for the clitoris to be removed in its entirety from the female vulva. As Catania argues, only the tip of the clitoris can ever be removed, leaving plenty of clitoris behind in a woman for sexual stimulation. Even women who have undergone infibulation are still able to enjoy sex and experience orgasm. The claim that female genital cutting renders a woman a sexual cripple for the rest of her life is simply categorically false.

Diagram of internal female anatomy taken from Wikipedia

Other facts that I invited this person to observe are that worldwide, 70% of males are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of men experiencing the "problems" she presents. I invited this person to consider that other body parts are susceptible to disease, but that they aren't removed at birth. 1 in 8 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. 1 in 6 American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The rate of men developing problems that may require surgical correction is approximately 1%.

The external labia are also "flaps of skin," which could be affected by disease and infection. It is one of the areas affected by cancer. So should these be removed as well?

I'd like to point out to my readers how the argument that "it could cause problems later on" only works when addressing the male foreskin.

Continuing with my exchange:

 "Males with constricted foreskins have to have the foreskin removed or face serious infections."

 Myths repeated here:

• The foreskin is prone to problems
• The problem is usually a constricted foreskin
• All men with constricted foreskins develop problems including serious infections

I keep asking people to look at reality. Because what is that reality? That 70% of all men in the world are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of constricted foreskins and "serious infections."

The fact of the matter is that true phimosis is actually quite rare, occurring at a rate of about 1%. Some men may have non-retractile foreskins that have nothing to do with phimosis, but the majority of these men live their lives with no problems. Infections, when they occur, can usually be taken care of with conventional medicine, just as they are taken care of in women, when they develop infections.

Some men do need surgery, but these cases are rare. What is the reason for the exaggeration? The person is trying to justify male circumcision. Of course, inner and outer labia have their own problems and diseases they are prone to, and some women must have them removed, but let's not talk about why early removal of them in girls is justified.

The exchange continues:

 "Having the foreskin removed is what male circumcision involves while in female circumcision, they basically cut deep into an area full of nerves and blood vessels, a very horrible, completely barbaric practice that serves no rational purpose. It is only cruel in every way imaginable."

Myth purported:

• The foreskin is not an area full of nerves and blood vessels

Really?

I want readers to notice how hyperbole is quite justified when speaking out against female circumcision, as is minimization when speaking in favor of male infant circumcision. The opposite is true; any attempt at minimizing FGM is met with hostility, and speaking about any detriment to male infant circumcision is "hyperbole."

Female circumcision is horrible, completely barbaric, serves no rational purpose, and only cruel in every way imaginable. Really? That's not what people who do it think. I hope it's obvious now that the grounds on which female circumcision is attacked, and on which male circumcision is defended is all self-serving special pleading. The conflicting rationale that only works for or against the circumcision of one sex are a necessary result of cognitive dissonance; the mental acrobatics necessary to holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind.

Research shows that the most sensitive area on a man's penis is in the transitional region from the external to the internal part of the foreskin, also known as the mucocutaneous junction, and that this is removed by circumcision. 

Diagram from Sorrells et al. study on penile sensitivity

Of course, the foreskin is also an area full of nerves and blood vessels, 20,000 nerves to be exact, however, in the mind of the person I'm having this exchange with, it isn't a problem to cut these off in boys.

The person persists and responds, recycling the same rationale, and repeating what this person already said before in even louder tones:

Saying that you can still have an orgasm if your clitoris is cut off is like saying that you can still use your arm if it is cut off.  Yes, you can still have vaginal orgasms as one still has a vagina.  However, a female can't have a clitoral orgasm if they have no clitoris and truth is that most females have clitoral orgasms far easier & more frequently than vaginal orgasms.

Why does anyone try to make excuses and make up lies to defend female genital mutilation where the truth is that there is no excuses for clitoris removal regardless!  It is equivalent to removing a male's penis head where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located.

Even after I presented evidence the contrary the following myths persist:

• Orgasm and/or sexual enjoyment is simply impossible without a clitoris
• The clitoris is always and completely removed during FGM
• Intactivists are trying to defend FGM
• Clitoral removal is equivalent to removing the glans penis in the male
• The glans is where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located

They say you can take a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Science and research are proving all these myths to be false, yet they persist.

It is actually possible to orgasm after losing the glans. There are videos of men ejaculating post penectomy. (Go to X-Tube and search "penectomy.") It is also interesting to note that transsexuals who undergo surgery are still able to enjoy sex without their penises.

Not that this justifies cutting off children's penises in any way; I'm just trying to dispel the "can't enjoy sex" myth and why it fails as any arguing point.

Let's explore this idea that removing part of the body doesn't affect its function.

You can still see with one eye. You can still taste if I cut off the tip of your tongue. Who sees better though? Who tastes better? Likewise, who feels more? Who has better sensations?

The bottom line

 Is it truly a matter "severity?"

Because even the WHO recognizes that not all FGM removes the clitoris. The WHO and AAP acknowledge that some forms of FGM are as severe, if not less severe than male infant circumcision.

Is it a matter of "pain?"

Because women circumcised as infants don't remember it either. And girls can be anesthetized as males can be.

Is it a matter of sexual enjoyment?

Because the great majority of circumcised women will tell you they enjoy sex and can orgasm just fine, just as the great majority of circumcised men will tell you.

The bottom line is this:

Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, the forced genital cutting of ANYONE is a gross violation of basic human rights.

Arguments that only work in favor or against forced circumcision of one sex, but not the other, are self-serving, ad-hoc, special pleading.

Even if female circumcision could be made "painless," and "less severe" than male circumcision, it would still be wrong.

Even if it could be proven that female circumcision would prevent scary diseases like HIV and cancer, forcibly doing it to non-consenting girls or women would still be wrong.

When an action is a basic human rights violation, how much sex a person can still enjoy afterward is secondary, if not irrelevant.

Related Posts:

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Links:
New York Times Magazine - A Cutting Tradition
All Africa - Africa: Female Circumcision - Orgasm Still Possible?
WHO - Classification of Female Genital Mutilation
Journal of Medical Ethics - Female genital alteration: a compromise solution

New York Times - Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

British Journal of Urology - Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

If "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used as alibis to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, can they be used to justify it in girls?

The world is about to find out.

There exists an inconsistent hypocrisy in this country when it comes to the forced genital cutting of minors.

We have a two-track system that says that forcibly cutting off the foreskin of a healthy, non-consenting male child is defensible under so-called "religious freedom," as well as so-called "parental choice," but it is "mutilation" to cut the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting female child in any way shape or form.

There is no exemption for parents who wish to have their daughters' genitals cut for "cultural" or "religious reasons," though with male circumcision, only "parental choice" suffices and a doctor can perform a circumcision in a male child with for no further reason than that a parent wanted it done.

In South-East Asian countries, girls are circumcised in infancy.

In different countries around the world, including regions of Africa and South-East Asia, girls are often circumcised in infancy in pretty much the same way as boys are in the US.

When media outlets present female genital cutting, it is often generalized that all of it takes place in the bush, performed by amateur tribal shamans with crude utensils such as rusty blades, tin can remnants and glass shards. (Which is funny, because male circumcision is often performed in these exact same settings in the exact same places where female circumcision is performed in this way.)

When you say "female circumcision," the default for most Americans is to correct you and say "no, it's mutilation," citing the above, and citing infibulation (AKA "pharaonic circumcision"), where the protruding part of the clitoris is excised, the outer and inner labia excised and the remnants sewn shut to leave but a small hole for menstruation.

While infibulation exists, this is actually the rarest form of FGM, constituting only about 15% of all female genital cutting.

Most FGM is not as severe.

"Severity" is not the issue here.

Yet there seems to be this unspoken rule that "the least severe of the practices is justifiable."

Most people in the West don't seem to be aware that infant girls can be circumcised in pretty much the same way as infant boys are, in the setting of a hospital, performed by a medical professional using pristine utensils, and excising only external, vestigial pieces of flesh, though in the Western mind, there is no acceptable amount of flesh that can be removed in a girl.

While the entire foreskin can be removed in a male for "religious" or "cultural" purposes in males, the removal of any amount of flesh in a female constitutes "mutilation" as is simply unacceptable.

Pictured here is the amount of flesh that was removed in a circumcision in South-East Asia.

The original blogger, the mother, claims it was the clitoris, which is barely visible on the blades.

 Pictured here is the freshly severed foreskin of a newborn infant in the US.

It is often claimed by female circumcision advocates that male infant circumcision as it is commonly performed in the United States is actually more severe than female circumcision is it is commonly performed in South-East Asian countries, and as readers can see for themselves, they wouldn't be exaggerating.

It is often claimed that the reason female circumcision is "more severe" in girls is supposedly because female circumcision removes the clitoris, and that without the clitoris sexual enjoyment and even orgasm aren't possible.

What is removed in female circumcision, if at all (not all FGM removes the clitoris), is the *tip* of the clitoris. Complete removal of the clitoris is actually impossible.

For this reason, even women who have undergone the most severe form of FGM can still enjoy sex and even experience orgasm, as documented by Johnsdotter and Catania.

FGM is not all the same. The WHO recognizes for different types, not all of which remove any part of the clitoris.

 FGM is not all one and the same.

For better or for worse, female infant circumcision is not seen as "mutilation" in the countries and cultures where it is performed.

In fact, it is often considered a religious requirement, known as "sunat" in South-East Asia.

Female circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by South-East Asian parents, just as male circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by American parents.

 If you ignore the fact that this is a South-East Asian parent talking about

circumcising her daughter, she would sound like any American parent on

a parenting forum like BabyCenter or BabyGaga.

We intactivists have always asked, if "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting male children, why can't it be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting female children?

The question is often circumvented with assertions that "they are not the same," because "one is more severe than the other," not to mention "the potential medical benefits of which there are zero in female circumcision."

These may or may not be true, but true or not, they would be irrelevant conclusions to the question posed.

Either "religious freedom" or "parental choice" can be used to justify the cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or they cannot.

Actually, as shown here, female circumcision can be more severe than male circumcision, and removing the labia can prevent the accumulation of smegma in females, as removing the foreskin can in males.

The fact that we do not circumcise females is testament to the fact that surgery is not necessary for hygiene.

And here, before I go on any further, I'd like to point out how in the face of scrutiny, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have to be abandoned as alibis.

These arguments are so weak and frail that after their demise, male infant circumcision advocates have to look elsewhere for recourse, in this case being "disease prevention," as if their concern for public health were genuine.

As with male infant circumcision advocates, female infant circumcision advocates are ready, complete with published "research" showing how female circumcision may be able to prevent this or that disease.

Again, because "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail.

It's Here
Anti-FGM advocates have up until today sidelined and ignored anyone who dare ask the above question, hoping we go away, but I think that by now, they're realizing that they can only do that so much.

Today, that question is staring them directly in the face, and they have to make a decision.

America has to make a decision.

Very soon, doctors, lawyers, ethicists, members on committee boards of respected medical organizations, our entire justice system will be faced with the question; how far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

How far can something be justified before it constitutes "abuse?"

Female genital cutting in any way shape or form has been illegal in the US since a federal ban against it was instituted in 1996.

No such ban exists for male genital cutting.

This insconsistency, this sexist two-track system is finally going to be challenged in a court of law.

The State of Affairs
The situation is as follows; a woman is facing charges for FGM performed in Detroit.

Not too long before that, an Ethiopian Man had been deported after serving a sentence for having her daughter circumcised.

According to Detroit News, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville is accused of mutilating the genitalia of two girls from Minnesota on Feb. 3 at a Livonia clinic owned by Dr. Fakhruddin Attar.

The Farmington Hills man has been indicted along with his wife, Farida Attar, who is accused of helping arrange the procedure and being in the examination room during the procedure.

Defense lawyers are saying the girls underwent a benign religious procedure, and that the government is overreaching. (E.g., it's not genital mutilation because it was religious.)

Nagarwala’s lawyer Shannon Smith said the doctor merely removed mucous membrane from the girls’ genitalia, placed the material on gauze pads and gave it to their families for burial. (There is a federal ban against any form of FGM regardless.)

All three are members of the Dawoodi Bohra community, a religious and cultural community based in India where FGM is practiced.

They are being held without bond pending a trial in federal court in Detroit on October 10th this year.

Fakhruddin Attar, 52, and Nagarwala, 44, face up to life in prison if convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.

Farida Attar, 50, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of conspiring to obstruct the investigation.

The trio is accused of committing female genital mutilation, trying to cover up the crime and conspiring to cut girls as part of a procedure practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra.

Top Laywers on the Case
Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired about three weeks ago by the Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth has represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases. His client list includes O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Conflicts of Interest
It looks like Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish. I couldn't find much on Morganroth, except that Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

Why is this important?

Male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism.

They have personal stake in this case, because if the federal government wins this landmark case against a physician performing genital cutting on children at the request of religious parents, then the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

A Delicate Dance
So much hangs in the balance in this case.

The defense lawyers have a delicate dance to perform; the dance around the candle that FGM activists and male infant circumcision advocates have been struggling to perform for decades, only now, it's being performed in federal court.

On the one hand, a landmark win is a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision will remain unquestioned.

It also means, however, that this may result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 to be lifted, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.
 

For the Holy Day of Ashura, parents cut the tops of childrens' heads.
Harmless, really...

In some cultures, children marry early.
It's religiously sanctioned of course...

 In some cultures, children's faces are scarified.

Some belief the scars provide religious protection. Does that count?

 What if I want to tattoo my faith on my child?

What if, instead of taking my child to the doctor, I insist on praying for him?

Because I believe only god can and should heal my child from diseases?

 Where does it end?
What if I invent a new religion that says that all children

must have their ears modified to look like Princess Zelda?

On the other hand, a landmark loss means the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

This also means, however, that parents can't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under "religious freedom."

So these lawyers have to decide what's more important: protecting the most basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting minors, or sacrificing them on the altar of "religious freedom."

You can't have it both ways.

Choose wisely.

While it seems like it's a lose-lose for them, I can't help but seeing it as a win-win for basic human rights.

As a human rights activist, I want the judge uphold the federal ban on FGM to rule in favor of basic human rights, and to condemn the actions of the people involved.

On the other, a rule in favor of "religious freedom" is a tacit admission that genital cutting is the same issue, male or female.

Actually, male circumcision and female circumcision will be legally recognized as being parallel, and neither FGM activists nor circumcision advocates will be able to deny it.

The firewall between the forced genital cutting of males and females will have been officially broken down.

Normalizing and even legalizing FGM will force the public to take a closer look at the issue, and to recognize that male and female circumcision are both one and the same, for they violate the exact same principles and are defended on the exact same grounds.

In either case, I see nothing but progress in the fight for basic human rights.

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay