If someone mutilates your genitals, would you be afraid of future persecution from them? You shouldn’t be, according to the U.S. government, as detailed in recent Congressional Research Service report.
Diagram 1:This image shows the different types of FGC and how they differ to the normal female anatomy. (Via Wikipedia, Wikimedia commons, creator: Kaylima)
According to the World Health Organization:
Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world are estimated to have undergone such procedures, and 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year. Female genital mutilation has been documented in 28 countries in Africa and in several countries in Asia and the Middle East. Some forms of the practice have also been reported from other countries, including among certain ethnic groups in Central and South America. There is also evidence of increasing numbers of girls and women living outside their place of origin, including in North America and western Europe, who have undergone or may be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation.
In the judicial branch, federal courts treat past genital mutilation as a well-founded fear of future persecution. But, in the executive branch, the Board of Immigration Appeals rejects this position, arguing that FGM is a one-time procedure, and that once inflicted, an applicant will not be persecuted with FGM again, and thus cannot act as a basis for an asylum application.
Make no mistake, there is a continuing harm to the women and girls. Women with FGM are significantly more likely than those without FGM to have adverse obstetric outcomes. Risks seem to be greater with more extensive FGM.
(2006). Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. The Lancet, 367(9525), 1835-1841. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68805-3
In trying to understand this, about the only thing I can come up with is circumcision: male babies are routinely circumcised. Although at some point in the future, we may be horrified by this, as of now it seems to be pretty standard, and, of course, males have no fear of future persecution. Female genital mutilation, of course, is a perversion of all of that, and although it can only happen once, it is enough to instill fear into anyone. It is considered by the WHO to be a human rights violation.
HT: Docuticker (again).
Update: Here’s a link from Boingboing talking about anti FGM campaigns — the reader comments are particularly interesting.
as if the victims of this can’t have female offspring they wish to protect..
Yes, protecting the children is an additional human rights issue.
not that i’m for this in any way but how is this any different than male circumcision? they’re both brutal and unnecessary.
Yes, both forms of circumcision are brutal and unnecessary, but, at least, male circumcision still allows the male to enjoy sex: female circumcision takes away the possibility of a female enjoying sex: forever! I think that is just a little worse than a temporary removal of a bit of skin.
So the U.S. Government preformed a black op extraordinary rendition based on circumstantial evidence, while in their custody in a “detainment friendly country” they tortured, and raped you, after five or six years they let you go, why are you still afraid?
Thanks everyone for the comments.
I think this forces us to consider whether we want to allow other cultures to practice what we see as abuse or not. Like “honor killing” and the rest of that abuse. I hope with the new oil money that human rights will improve, but, the more oil money feeds into the old kleptocracies, the less freedom for the masses. At a minimum, US Gov., we need to allow female asylum in the US where there are female-specific human rights abuses. (Not to say there aren’t equally as horrific male abuses, but perhaps those are abuses in general, not directed specifically against men, but I could be wrong).
this is against the GOD’S WILL.
Children were born with GOD gave them
what rights does have man have to undo or take away what GOD has given. Man is not a law unto himself . Man is not GOD. But GOD see all things, hears all things .
Man will be held accountable.
to the young girls who have gotten FGM:
This act is not right for a young girl why would a child need this. especially if its killing them. Why is it fair for a man to lose his virginity to any one he wants then it should be fair for the females men are so evil.
Jennifer, do you live in a place where this is done?
This heinous act absolutely does not serve any medical purposes at all nor does it serve as a command from God. This was started to control a girl’s sexual urge. For the males, they are circumcised because of a Jewish law not meant for outsiders. Given by Moses from the Lord on the eight day a Jewish baby’s circumcision marks his entrance into the covenant with God. This procedure does not harm the male or cause him to not perform correctly. This is not done to the female.
Jennifer, it is not right for both male and female to loose there virginity before marriage because it is made to consummate the marriage, becoming one under God, and communion between the husband and wife.
I’m am male and though am not Jewish nor part of any other religion, I was circumcised at a very young age for medical reasons where had it not been done my own body would have “de-sexed” me or worse I could have died due to a build up of toxins in my body due to not being able to pee (please excuse the term, I have trouble spelling). Other than for some medical reason due to a life threatening illness (i.e. cancerous growths) I see no reason for this heinous and brutal act, and it should be stopped.
Shut up Jaysun, your religions rules do not apply to people not of your religion.