FGM

[Queen Titania]

I just popped in to make trouble ;-) I came across an interesting paper on FGM which I thought some might like to read ---------------

https://www.academia.edu/10197867/Between_moral_relativism_and_moral_hypocrisy_The_case_of_FGM

And I mean READ before jumping on any high horse -

 

[fairsheet]

I just popped in to make trouble ;-) I came across an interesting paper on FGM which I thought some might like to read ---------------

https://www.academia.edu/10197867/Between_moral_relativism_and_moral_hypocrisy_The_case_of_FGM

And I mean READ before jumping on any high horse -

There are those who insist that global climate change is a hoax, perpetrated on us by a cabal of 97% of the world's climatologists, all in cahoots with one another. This is silly right out of the box, since it's hard enough for two scientists working in the same lab, to work in concert with one another! "Science" is a cutthroat bidness to say the very least. The holy grail for just about any academician and/or scientist is to come up with an idea that no once else is considering AND prove that its valid. The second part of this equation is about as remote as is winning the "Mega-Milllions". The first part is easy. That's what this co-called "scientist" is doing here. He's drawing attention to himself by forwarding a ridiculous premise.

One of, if not THE founding premise of his entire screed, goes to "cultural bias". We all know that FGM only exists within certain cultures. It's a "cultural thing". But, how do we assume "bias" from that? The suggestion seems to be that people's issue with FGM goes beyond just the act itself, but it goes to the fact that we just don't like the cultures that engage in it.

Take skin color and Vitamin D. Copious research suggests that the whiter the skin, the quicker Vitamin D is absorbed from sunlight. And the darker the skin, the slower it's absorbed. That's only logical from an anthropological/evolutionary standpoint. The lightest skinned people live in the far north where there's less sunlight and darker people live closer to the equator. So, if I were to go one step beyond that finding and start looking into the details and specifics of Vitamin D in dark skin people, would I necessarily be guilty of cultural bias?

P.S. Before anyone gets put out because I'm being mean to this "researcher", remember, he's the one that submitted it for review.

 

[BobbyT]

There are those who insist that global climate change is a hoax, perpetrated on us by a cabal of 97% of the world's climatologists, all in cahoots with one another. This is silly right out of the box, since it's hard enough for two scientists working in the same lab, to work in concert with one another! "Science" is a cutthroat bidness to say the very least. The holy grail for just about any academician and/or scientist is to come up with an idea that no once else is considering AND prove that its valid. The second part of this equation is about as remote as is winning the "Mega-Milllions". The first part is easy. That's what this co-called "scientist" is doing here. He's drawing attention to himself by forwarding a ridiculous premise.

One of, if not THE founding premise of his entire screed, goes to "cultural bias". We all know that FGM only exists within certain cultures. It's a "cultural thing". But, how do we assume "bias" from that? The suggestion seems to be that people's issue with FGM goes beyond just the act itself, but it goes to the fact that we just don't like the cultures that engage in it.

Take skin color and Vitamin D. Copious research suggests that the whiter the skin, the quicker Vitamin D is absorbed from sunlight. And the darker the skin, the slower it's absorbed. That's only logical from an anthropological/evolutionary standpoint. The lightest skinned people live in the far north where there's less sunlight and darker people live closer to the equator. So, if I were to go one step beyond that finding and start looking into the details and specifics of Vitamin D in dark skin people, would I necessarily be guilty of cultural bias?

P.S. Before anyone gets put out because I'm being mean to this "researcher", remember, he's the one that submitted it for review.

The linked article is another "how can you be against FGM and for male circumcision" goat rope. As though they are equivalent.

 

[Queen Titania]

There are those who insist that global climate change is a hoax, perpetrated on us by a cabal of 97% of the world's climatologists, all in cahoots with one another. This is silly right out of the box, since it's hard enough for two scientists working in the same lab, to work in concert with one another! "Science" is a cutthroat bidness to say the very least. The holy grail for just about any academician and/or scientist is to come up with an idea that no once else is considering AND prove that its valid. The second part of this equation is about as remote as is winning the "Mega-Milllions". The first part is easy. That's what this co-called "scientist" is doing here. He's drawing attention to himself by forwarding a ridiculous premise.

One of, if not THE founding premise of his entire screed, goes to "cultural bias". We all know that FGM only exists within certain cultures. It's a "cultural thing". But, how do we assume "bias" from that? The suggestion seems to be that people's issue with FGM goes beyond just the act itself, but it goes to the fact that we just don't like the cultures that engage in it.

Take skin color and Vitamin D. Copious research suggests that the whiter the skin, the quicker Vitamin D is absorbed from sunlight. And the darker the skin, the slower it's absorbed. That's only logical from an anthropological/evolutionary standpoint. The lightest skinned people live in the far north where there's less sunlight and darker people live closer to the equator. So, if I were to go one step beyond that finding and start looking into the details and specifics of Vitamin D in dark skin people, would I necessarily be guilty of cultural bias?

P.S. Before anyone gets put out because I'm being mean to this "researcher", remember, he's the one that submitted it for review.

Dealing with your middle paragraph. The question has only come up surely because those who practice FGM as a part of their culture now live among us, if that were not so I doubt most of us would have any notion of its existence. In this understanding yes he says, and we can research this ourselves quite easily, there is a hypocrisy within both society and its politicos and within the medical profession, which pertains to the USofAmore than anywhere else because of the fashion among young girls of having their 'pussy enhanced' with 'plastic surgery' and in having piercings in odd places - that the equivalents of, foreign to us, cultural FGM and western cosmetic surgery are in some cases no different and in others very close, but in both those cases done for enhancement = to make the girl ( girls as young as 13 have been known to have had pussy cosmetic surgery, for enhancement only, in the US ) more beautiful and or feminine in their eyes - That the laws against FGM apply, in western countries, only to those for whom it is a part of their culture and not to western women and girls - for eg an African woman who asks a Dr to tighten her vagina after giving birth to bring her back into that which she was before will be refused on the grounds that it is cultural FGM and yet a western woman will not be refused exactly the same procedure for exactly the same reasons - another eg -one form of FGM ritual is simply piercing the clitorus to draw blood, that is illegal and yet how many western women have piercings on their clit' now? So in that he also questions if we are talking about enhancement rather than mutilation and why is it mutilation in one culture and enhancement in another? The main objection against FGM in the western mind set, and the one most commonly heard, is that it is forced on women by men to keep them down and destroy their sexual pleasure - this he shows to be untrue - (he has left references)

 

[Queen Titania]

The linked article is another "how can you be against FGM and for male circumcision" goat rope. As though they are equivalent.

In both cases -there are degrees of 'mutilation', neither are cut ( scuse pun) and dried, male circumcision is this and female circumcision is that - one form of FMG is a mere prick were as one form of male circumcision, from which 80 boys are known to have died in South Africa in 2013, is to cut the inside of the penis and scrotum open from top to bottom ( again excuse pun ) so taking those two extremes there is no overall equivalent to judge by and yet the lesser is illegal and the most severe is not. Also that culturally in many cases, taken as rites of passage, so from childhood into adulthood, both male and female pubescents are 'circumcised' - the female is taken from the boy making him entirely masculine and the male from the girl making her entirely female - making them ready for adulthood in their respective male, female roles, and not as they will have us believe unequal roles but different roles. And yet the females circumcision is illegal and the males is not. The main thing he questions as far as 'should we' perform either has to do with consent and thus the age it is done - which is, as you know, my main argument against circumcising babies, but that is not the question here, FGM and western hypocrisy through lack of knowledge is.

 

[fairsheet]

The linked article is another "how can you be against FGM and for male circumcision" goat rope. As though they are equivalent.

Bobby, don't we all know it! But for the sake of discussion, I chose to ignore that elephant in this post-room.

 

[BobbyT]

Bobby, don't we all know it! But for the sake of discussion, I chose to ignore that elephant in this post-room.

Probably a good choice. I just can't get into creating an equivalency between FGM and male circumcision. As I recall, there was already a hugely long thread on that topic already anyway.

 

[Queen Titania]

Probably a good choice. I just can't get into creating an equivalency between FGM and male circumcision. As I recall, there was already a hugely long thread on that topic already anyway.

I expect there has been - the main body of this paper isn't about equivalencies between male and female circumcision though, is it? It touches on it because, to be fair, it must.
It is to a great degree about western hypocrisy, which says, woman may not have a precedure because it is for cultural reasons, and we have decided it is illegal, but that another (western) woman may have the exact same procedure for cosmetic reasons, and we have decided this is legal - Isn't the cultural reason often also for enhancement? Why may a 13 year old American girl have her puss 'tidied up' to her perceived idea of beauty but an African or Asian or from any other 'foreign culture' 13 or 30 or 40 year old woman may not? Why may piercings be done on western girls as a fashion statement but not others because it is a part of their culture?

 

[BobbyT]

I expect there has been - the main body of this paper isn't about equivalencies between male and female circumcision though, is it, it touches on it because, to be fair, it must.
It is to a great degree about western hypocrisy, which says, woman may not have a precedure because it is for cultural reasons, and thus illegal, but that another (western) woman may have the exact same procedure for cosmetic reasons, and thus legal - Isn't the cultural reason often also for enhancement? Why may a 13 year old American girl have her puss 'tidied up' to her perceived idea of beauty but an African or Asian or from any other 'foreign culture' 13 or 30 or 40 year old woman may not?

I've seen your claims that western women have "these procedures" but no links so I don't know exactly what you mean by "these procedures." My guess is that western women aren't having their clitoris excised.

 

[Queen Titania]

I've seen your claims that western women have "these procedures" but no links so I don't know exactly what you mean by "these procedures." My guess is that western women aren't having their clitoris excised.

The clitorus is not excised in the normal forms of FGM which touch the clitorus,( piercings or cuts or the hood of -) most of it is internal, 80%,only in some forms of FGM is the surface sliced away. I know there are extreme forms of FGM but they are also extremely rare - you haven't read the paper obviously,which gives references -you have just cherry picked - here is one article

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/hea...al-therapy-past-future-plastic-surgery-73229/

the exact same procedure as some FGM - exactly the same -

 

[BobbyT]

The clitorus is not excised in any form of FGM - you haven't read the paper obviously,which gives references -you have just cherry picked - here is one article

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/hea...al-therapy-past-future-plastic-surgery-73229/

the exact same procedure as some FGM - exactly the same -

I did read the paper. I saw the references. I'm not going to go exhaustively research every one of them. The article you linked here talks about removing the clitoral hood on women (not girls) who chose to have the surgery done. According to this article, clitorodectomy (removal of the clitoris) is done: http://worldpulse.com/node/13683

 

[Queen Titania]

There have been girls in the US of 13 who have had such FGM/cosmetic surgery - and in many cases culturally it is 'rite of passage' - so at and around 13 also -

I too don't feel like 'surfing the web' so shall we take it as a given that Brian Earp, who has good cred, has done the research for us?

Even in the Sudan the clitorus is not removed- that which protrudes above the surface ( masculine ) is in some forms of FGM, in others it is not touched, but the whole clitorus is never removed - and removal of the hood is one form of FGM

 

[fairsheet]

Dealing with your middle paragraph. The question has only come up surely because those who practice FGM as a part of their culture now live among us, if that were not so I doubt most of us would have any notion of its existence. In this understanding yes he says, and we can research this ourselves quite easily, there is a hypocrisy within both society and its politicos and within the medical profession, which pertains to the USofAmore than anywhere else because of the fashion among young girls of having their 'pussy enhanced' with 'plastic surgery' and in having piercings in odd places - that the equivalents of, foreign to us, cultural FGM and western cosmetic surgery are in some cases no different and in others very close, but in both those cases done for enhancement = to make the girl ( girls as young as 13 have been known to have had pussy cosmetic surgery, for enhancement only, in the US ) more beautiful and or feminine in their eyes - That the laws against FGM apply, in western countries, only to those for whom it is a part of their culture and not to western women and girls - for eg an African woman who asks a Dr to tighten her vagina after giving birth to bring her back into that which she was before will be refused on the grounds that it is cultural FGM and yet a western woman will not be refused exactly the same procedure for exactly the same reasons - another eg -one form of FGM ritual is simply piercing the clitorus to draw blood, that is illegal and yet how many western women have piercings on their clit' now? So in that he also questions if we are talking about enhancement rather than mutilation and why is it mutilation in one culture and enhancement in another? The main objection against FGM in the western mind set, and the one most commonly heard, is that it is forced on women by men to keep them down and destroy their sexual pleasure - this he shows to be untrue - (he has left references)

In order for you and he to make your case, you need to premise yourselves on one of my pet peeves, "the fact of the matter". Your "scientist" assumes to himself, the role of final arbiter as to cultural effects. Frankly, I think it's a heckuva lot more honest and useful in cases such as this, to default to the idea that "culture" is at the root of most all ideas. And that being the case, we need to consider questions at a higher level than that truth.

As for your response specifically, I simply don't accept your premise that any significant number of western female minors, are undergoing comestic surgery to their privates.

 

[fairsheet]

Probably a good choice. I just can't get into creating an equivalency between FGM and male circumcision. As I recall, there was already a hugely long thread on that topic already anyway.

These things I know......Women and women's groups, as opposed to men and men's groups have taken the lead in advocating against female genital mutilation. I suppose we could probably find one male loon or another, who's obsessed with circumcision. To the extent that there's any popular outcry against circumcision, it seems tilted toward the female side.

 

[Queen Titania]

In order for you and he to make your case, you need to premise yourselves on one of my pet peeves, "the fact of the matter". Your "scientist" assumes to himself, the role of final arbiter as to cultural effects. Frankly, I think it's a heckuva lot more honest and useful in cases such as this, to default to the idea that "culture" is at the root of most all ideas. And that being the case, we need to consider questions at a higher level than that truth.

As for your response specifically, I simply don't accept your premise that any significant number of western female minors, are undergoing comestic surgery to their privates.

You are nibbling round the edges here fair - No hard and fast type case has been made in this paper which is coming from an ethical/moral stand point because that is what this Research Fellow does ----- at Oxford in their Centre for Practical Ethics - his sphere of research interests are -Morality (Social Psychology), Cognitive Psychology,Psychology, Social Psychology, Cognitive Science,Automaticity, and 65 more- and his formal education was ---

• Brian D. Earp is an interdisciplinary researcher with training in cognitive science, experimental psychology, philosophy, history and philosophy of science and medicine, and ethics.
  
  Brian completed his MSc. in experimental psychology as a Henry Fellow of New College, Oxford, and his M.Phil. in the history and philosophy of science & medicine as a Cambridge Trust Scholar and Rausing Award Recipient at Trinity College, Cambridge. He received his undergraduate degree from Yale University, where he studied cognitive science and philosophy and was elected President of the Yale Philosophy Society.
  
  Serving as Editor-in-Chief of both the international Yale Philosophy Review and the Yale Review of Undergraduate Research in Psychology, Brian also conducted extensive experimental research in a number of areas, generally touching on unconscious or automatic mental processes. Currently, he is involved in several ongoing research projects in cognitive, social, and moral psychology with colleagues at different universities.
  
  Brian's senior thesis at Yale was awarded the Robert G. Crowder Prize from the Department of Psychology.
  
  A recipient of the Ledyard Cogswell award, the highest honor bestowed upon a graduating senior in Yale's Calhoun College, Brian is also a professional actor and singer, with nearly 50 leading roles to his credit, and was called "one of the most audaciously talented young actors seen on any Seattle stage in many years" by talkinbroadway.com.
  
  With Professor Julian Savulescu, Brian is writing a book on the neuroenhancement of love and marriage.

So you might find a paper from another perspective more to your liking, in which case we needs look elsewhere but which in fact this Fellow has already done for us as a part of his research, references he has left - and having researched all known data the questions he poses in this rounded paper are what he has been left with. And it is this paper and the questions it leaves us with which I posted - not another paper but this one -

I find your proposed idea of leaving culture out of something which is perceived as and condemned as cultural rather odd. Whose higher truths are we talking about here fair? Is that not the most important question posed in this paper? The white man imposing his morality on the black man only in this day and age of puritanical terrorist feminists - we exchange man for women -

As far as American women and girls seeking FGM as cosmetic surgery - on Medicare it seems to have hit around the 2000 per year mark but real numbers are impossible to find because most have it done privately in the Western World - that there are surgeons which specialize in 'genital enhancement' now leads us to suppose it is not as unusual as we would think. And that there are now so many articles written on the subject and adverts all over some womens mags --- Just google and you will find a few specialist surgeons in the US ----------------


The question of, women, western and otherwise, who consider FGM to be an enhancement not a mutilation - as do many men of both FGM and male circumcision.

It actually makes no difference how many women do or do not make such choices- legally one may and the other may not - that is one of the question asked in this paper about - I need remind you too? This paper is -

Between moral relativism and moral hypocrisy;
The case of 'FGM'

 

[Queen Titania]

These things I know......Women and women's groups, as opposed to men and men's groups have taken the lead in advocating against female genital mutilation. I suppose we could probably find one male loon or another, who's obsessed with circumcision. To the extent that there's any popular outcry against circumcision, it seems tilted toward the female side.

All forms of FGM are illegal, exactly the same procedures calling themselves cosmetic surgery are not for some reason - if you want to find a paper on Bobbys 'pet subject' I believe Brian Earp has written one - but that was not the main purpose of this paper - As far as I have gathered btw Brian Earp, personally, is against any form of FGM and or circumcision before the age of consent - but again, personal opinion is not what this research paper is about -


Between moral relativism and moral hypocrisy

 

[Queen Titania]

I'm bumping this up, not because I particularly want a debate on FGM but because of the questions it brings up on a new hypocricy which is instilling a new 'racial' divide, bigotry - and it seems to be coming from the so called 'left'. In fact I would actually argue that but this is how it seems,

 

[fairsheet]

All forms of FGM are illegal, exactly the same procedures calling themselves cosmetic surgery are not for some reason - if you want to find a paper on Bobbys 'pet subject' I believe Brian Earp has written one - but that was not the main purpose of this paper - As far as I have gathered btw Brian Earp, personally, is against any form of FGM and or circumcision before the age of consent - but again, personal opinion is not what this research paper is about -


Between moral relativism and moral hypocrisy

I've not read completely through your "researcher's" entire piece, so all have to take your word for it, that this crackpot is implying an anti-circumcision angle.

 

[Queen Titania]

I've not read completely through your "researcher's" entire piece, so all have to take your word for it, that this crackpot is implying an anti-circumcision angle.

No he isn't -------------- we can't really discuss it if you won't read it though

 

[fairsheet]

No he isn't -------------- we can't really discuss it if you won't read it though

I'm sorry. I skimmed over the fact that you weren't talking about your "researcher". You were talking about someone else's "research" around your "researcher".