Letters to the Editor
-
Response to Manatee
You wrote:
"Female genital mutilation is not circumcision
I won't attempt to wade into the circumcision morass, except to note that those who would even attempt to equate male (penile) circumcision with female (clitoral or clitoral/labia) "circumcision" (i.e., genital mutilation) should seriously question the value of their elementary and secondary school educations, specifically in the areas of biology, anatomy, critical reasoning, and logic."
I won't attempt to explain to you why there is a valid comparison between the two in some situations (as idiotic as Brightstar is, is point is correct). I will however direct you to various individuals and organizations that apparently did not receive decent elementary and secondary educations, yet still manage to dedicate their lives to eradicating female genital cutting (actually the preferred term, check the links).
The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project,
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.php, which actually maintains a side-by-side page explicitly comparing the two.
Abu-Sahlieh, SA "To mutilate in the name of Jehovah or Allah: legitimization of male and female circumcision."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7731348&dopt=Abstract
An article by a doctor published in major medical journal. Click on related articles for another half dozen or so more articles by other doctors published in other major medical journals. I chose this one for two reasons: the doctor was cited favorably by several anti-FGC websites and because the article addresses the Koran's take on the issue (fyi, it's against both male and female), noting that many important Muslim clerics and organizations have concluded FGC is forbidden by the Koran, important considering it is a cultural, not a religious practice. Regardless, sounds like a lot of doctors (and a lot of medical journals) need to repeat elementary school biology.
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity
http://www.icgi.org/information/hgm-classification/
Again, makes an explicit comparison based on WHO classifications, including suggesting what a gender neutral definition of genital mutilation would look like. This is a coalition of many different organizations made up of all types of different individuals from around the world, all of whom presumably failed elementary sex ed.
Although I am sure some will question the authority of my citations, those are just the first few I found in a quick Internet search. There are many other legitimate organizations and individuals who understand the parallel. As far as the correct terminology, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's talking about the World Health Organization, it's just a good summary. Point is, the term "female genital mutilation" is not only inaccurate, but also counter productive in that it is judgmental and condescending towards the target audience (my biggest complaint with the anti-FGC crowd). Which brings me around to my main reason for writing this letter (as much as I am opposed to male circ., I know its off topic for this article)
Why the hell did Manatee's letter get an editor's choice star? I mean, seriously. Not only is it in response to an off-topic letter, it's not even really a response (as Manatee admits) but rather a sophomoric insult of other letter writers. Perhaps this was the editor's attempt to show support for the use of proper terminology (not the point of Manatee's letter, or at least one that could have been better/less insultingly), but as mentioned above, it's not the proper terminology. Or perhaps (or in addition) it shows the editor's approval of the opinion that anyone who compares male and female circumcision lacks basic knowledge of human anatomy. If that's the case, why don't the editors actually say that for once? And maybe back it up with some evidence, show us how much they know about human anatomy and medical practice? And is this really the kind of discussion and debate you want to encourage with editor's stars? Insults? Conclusory statements that the other side is just stupid? I don't want to start up yet another discussion on male v. female circ. or about the nature/need for Broadsheet, but for me, the editor's star of this letter pretty much sums up my problem with Broadsheet. Rather than welcome insight and analysis, and thus advance understanding and knowledge, it ignores dissenting voices, contrary opinions, and legitimate flaws in its own logic and rewards and supports only those opinions, thoughts, and comments that comport with its own inflexible and immutable world view.