Thursday, May 6, 2010

Where is the outrage?

Maybe it's just me but I feel like there is a deafening silence in the release of the AAP's new statement on Genital Cutting. While I know many Americans are strongly vehement FOR male circumcision these same people are usually vehemently outraged against the act of FGM, so why are we not hearing anything from them in regards to the AAP promoting ritual clitoral nicking in the name of cultural bias?

As I sit here pouring over information and formulating my own letter to the AAP bioethics committee, I am just stunned by how much I am not hearing from the general public and media regarding this. Does it bother no one (aside from the vocal Intactivsts) that this country could be moving backwards and allowing doctors to cut female genitals? Really?! Are you not disgusted and furious that this could be allowed in this country again? Let's forget the argument for a minute that male and female cutting are both mutilation and wrong. Let's just focus on the female aspect for right now. Why are you not foaming at the mouth that it might be OK to nick a girls clitoris. Or are you complacent with it because it is someone else's cultural norm?

Those fighting for the rights of girls have worked hard for 30 years to keep this from happening. It has been illegal here since 1996 and now, 15 years later we are going to change our minds and let it be ok? I am not sure if I am sickened, pissed off or oddly not surprised due to the major backsliding this country has already been doing this past year. Stunned, that would be a good word for it. We should all b yelling loudly about this injustice and THEN we should all get just as loud about what is being done to the infant boys as well.

From Intact America:

The AAP is condoning "non-harmful" clitoral "nicks" but any
non-therapeutic cut into the normal body of a non-consenting minor is
physically and psychologically harmful and it is also assault and
battery. Female genital cutting has been outlawed by federal law, and
the AAP is treading on dangerous ground when it promotes unlawful

Legitimizing clitoral "nicking" by medicalizing it is not appropriate
for an organization that claims to be dedicated to the health of all
children. The AAP should be protecting children's genital integrity
rights, not compromising children to satisfy personal preference,
cultural conditioning, religious affiliation, or monetary gain.

We must call for appropriate steps to be taken to retract the Policy
Statement on Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors. And, let us insist
that the AAP's Task Force on Male Circumcision will do a better job at protecting our infants and children than the committee that put together this
unconscionable statement.


  1. There were several reasons that we decided to NOT circumcise our son, one of them being that we would not even think of doing something like that to our daughters.

  2. That's awesome Mama Mary! Neither of my boys (14 & 9) are circumcised. I was an intactivist and against nonmedical circumcision before I even knew what it was!

  3. You should have heard the rant I went on about it to my friend Rachael when we were in the car the other day. lol. She looked a little scared....

  4. LOL Tab! I tend to get a bit of the crazy eye happening when I talk about it. Poor N had to deal with my talk last night about the co-sleeping study they did in Wisconsin and what they discovered and what it was that sparked the study. By the end (I was rubbing a knot out of his shoulder) he was like "honey you can stop I think it's ok now, ouch!" Um whoopsie!

  5. Although I am outraged... I'm not any more outraged than I am on any other day in regards to the unethical approach, purposeful distractions and omissions and lies they have in their male circumcision policy. Until the male circumcision situation, which is a much more pressing problem affecting many more children and many more doctors in the USA is corrected... I don't see the point in getting MORE upset about the proposed "nicking" compromise. We have no right to condemn other cultures about their habits if we are not willing to face our own... the AAP goes so far as to say this- maybe the only thing I agree with them about! When we stop being hypocrites ourselves- when our doctors actually adhere to medical ethics in all circumstances- then they can have a platform to refuse... but as long as doctors can be compelled to circumcise for non-medical reasons (re:AAP on MGM) "It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions" I don't see the point in making gender differentiations... they are nothing more than racist cultural intolerance. I'm just saying- I could not have any less respect or trust in the AAP already... this new FGM policy statement does not shock me one bit.

  6. I totally get what you are saying and where you are coming from. At the moment the AAP says male circ is medically unnecessary and they don't promote it. However they just recently met to go over their new circ policy. Instead of cracking down on male circ they are instead softening their stance on female circ in order to perhaps recommend male circ. And certainly to cover their asses over the lawsuits that could happen in the next few years as those boys who were circ'd after the 1996 bill protcting girls, come of age and claim gender inequality under the 14th amendment. By saying look we think cultural nicks on females may be ok they are in effect making a gender equality case, only it's in the wrong damn direction