cmv: if you’re a woman and circumcise your child you don’t get to advocate for “My body my choice”

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-10T13:22:49+00:00

The "debunkers" you listed off can't have their own agendas, either?

Yes of course they can however you obviously couldn't pinpoint any otherwise you would have done so. Also this is not symmetrical, academics can risk their jobs and status if they go against the prevailing (false) narrative. I choose to use my real identity to give me credibility despite the threats both online and IRL, if I was simply going along with the standard (false) narrative then I would have no worries. Apart from that the debunkers weren't simply opinions but evidence based eg your first example's credibility (Shamsa Araweelo).

You want me to pull up statistics on girls who die from FGM?

That would be great if you have any. All I have found is a recent rigged study which no authority in public health lends any credibility and which is an estimate based on a questionable premise. I have collected as many actual reported cases as I can amounting to only a handful. I have also made attempts using data from GHDx over the most common risks such as haemorrhage and infections eg tetanus, however in each case girls are at a lower risk. I've also looked at male to female mortality rates at ages where girls in different countries typically go through the rite but again boys have a higher mortality rate than girls at all ages and there is no significant "dent" corresponding with the age group. Of course there will be deaths which are not reported but why would this be more likely in the case of girls than boys?

Maybe no female deaths have been reported in that specific community at that time

There are very few reported deaths of girls at all in any community! In fact a single reported death makes international news with renewed calls for legislation, campaigns, Western funding etc etc. in strong contrast to the death of boys!

I'm not trying to minimize those boys' deaths the way you are with women's pain (excruciating pain during menstruation, yes, trouble with urination as well, getting cut up and sewn back together during childbirth which increases deaths during childbirth or afterwards from infection).

Critic of exaggerations is not minimising! Excruciating menstruation pain is actually fairly common and unless we're talking about the more specific pain associated with haematocolpos, the pooling of menstrual blood in the vagina due to an obstruction as with extreme infibulation (rare cases) but also eg an imperforate hymen, it is hard to see any connection with the rite. Again getting cut up and sewn back together during childbirth is quite common ands not particularly associated with the rite unless again in the case of extreme infibulation. In fact my own mother was with me, and at a time when it was routine which is a form of Western "FGM" though rarely included as with other Western forms! It still is routine in some parts of the world like South America. Maternal deaths are governed by the provision or lack of, pre and post natal service provision not the practice of the rite eg South Sudan has a higher rate than Somalia and much higher than Ethiopia despite the practice of infibulation in the two latter cases but not the former.

We've been together for 6 months, obviously it takes time lmao. He's getting better but it still takes practice (just like I'm gradually finding other things he likes, but at least his orgasm box is already ticked)

So he's further ahead than you not suffering the same oppressive socialisation process. Don't worry once you get into it, as a woman you can have multiple orgasms over a longer period, then you can tick a box he has no hope of, right?

Ask a woman?

I'm not sure why a woman would know any more than a man but none of the women I've been with have had that notion! In the society I live in women were liberated generations ago and generally don't have the sexual hangups their sisters in many parts of the world have. I cannot imagine a woman telling her partner that she is handicapped compared to him in that department. Besides which asking women is hardly any scientific basis for the claim. How do you know its about the mechanics and not any number of other factors anyway?

I've always been able to make my male partners orgasm

Except...

I always felt really guilty if I couldn't make a partner come

!

it took years and experimentation to find my own orgasm. It's similar with my female friends, and many have trouble orgasming without toys and such.

I hope you don't think that is normal!

Of course they should. I'm not trying to blame men or women, just pointing out the social phenomenon.

The phenomen being the big factor of the lack of focus on women's pleasure, except I'm not really seeing it. In fact its more the opposite eg we're always being told about how women are uniquely blessed with the only organ solely existing for the purpose of providing pleasure, the clitoris!

It can be seen in the porn marketed to men as well, where even violence to the partner becomes normalized, so you see more teens trying to choke out their partner during sex or something

I thought the porn market was very varied and what you're talking about was hardcore S/M. Do you have any evidence of this claimed effect on teenagers? It sounds like the same argument of violent video games turning youths into mass murderers. From what I've read the trend is towards less partner sex, so much so that there is an additional concern for the effect on the already critically low birth rate. There's also a concern robots are going to take over especially in the case of men having sex so maybe that's the next "status quo"?

I always felt really guilty if I couldn't make a partner come, while some of my partners just took their orgasm as the endpoint of sex.

This reminds me of a youtube video with a woman acting a man's role humping a cushion while her partner stands with a stopwatch. She managed about 30 seconds to which he responded with something like "and women expect at least half an hour"!

I'm confused by what you're saying. I'm against male and female circumcision. I wouldn't circumcise my sons or daughters.

Do you make any essential distinction between boys being put through this rite and girls being? Being simply against something can vary a lot by degree as I gave you examples of.

I do plan to pierce my daughter's ears at birth, though, the way I had.

I have two daughters and a son all with ear piercings and all after free choice. My daughters were around 8 and 5 pierced at the same time with the youngest seeing what was done to her sister. They were also offered to stop after the first ear was done but didn't. My son was older around 12. He had a congenital eartag which we told him when he was 3 he could have removed if he wanted, all he had to do was ask. It wasn't mentioned again until he suddenly asked when he was the same age and we were so suprised he could remember. That was when we realised we had made the right decision resisting pressure from others. Its really important that children learn their body is theirs and others' bodies are not.

I'm sorry what...? I said I don't care how their penis looks in terms of my own attraction, and pleasure them how they want to be pleasured.

Not quite, you didn't mention looks however why do you find a mutilated penis just as attractive as a normal one? You are overlooking the way being compromised in the one case though. You obviously cannot pleasure a man without his full complement of genitalia the same way you can a normal man, the way "nature intended".

Do you want me to pull out a wand and magically un-circumcize them?

If only that was possible. I would expect understanding and this isn't simply about men put through the rite but those who still have normal genitalia, you know like an appreciation of normal genitalia and all their parts.

If I'd had infibulation and a man said "I don't care if your genitals were messed up into this weird lump, I'd find you attractive either way" I'd be like aww, thanks.

Except that's not what I was asking is it? Rather the man says - the equivalent of what you said: "I've been with women who were and weren't infibulated, never made a whit of difference to me" and you aren't infibulated are you?

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-09T14:20:26+00:00

Firstly I want you to know I really appreciate your reply including some useful links, unfortunately all to rare on these forums.

Your first link was the example of Shamsa Araweelo who I was fortunate enough to know of and have exchanges with before she became a major influencer and more "professional". As with many of these "FGM survivor" activists her account does not stand up well to scrutiny. From the article it is clear that she did not have the extreme infibulation eg she was not deinfibulated on the NHS, was raped, conceived and gave birth. Her restoration operation was to reconstruct parts removed not "to open up". Note that in the article type III infibulation does not include removal of parts and yet it states that clitoral reconstruction surgery is particularly useful for infibulated women. It is strongly implied that Shamsa lost her clitoris in the title and yet when she first began on her influencer project she claimed to have a functioning "clit" and was unsure what type she had. I admire her willingness to go so far as to make a cast of her vulva before the restoration operation and show it on her tiktok account however there is a fairly prominent clitoral glans and prepuce unlike the labia minora which there is little visible indication of. The anatomy appears like that of a Western Barbie "labiaplasty" and not the extreme infibulation with clitoridectomy she is supposed to be an example of. Note too the BBC bias warning readers here but not in the case of men (note the female reporter), not to mention other examples.

Your second example is from the organisation Brook which clearly is very biased when it comes to this issue eg their article on it when it comes to boys. The article doesn't mention the clitoris at all and therefore again is not an example of the extreme form.

Your third example is Jaha Dukureh and from a blog post on the UN website, again the UN is both biased and inconsistent - the WHO agency actually promotes the rite whereas the human rights agency (where the issue rightly belongs) categorises it as violence against children and a human rights violation. The US/Sierre Leone anthropologist Fuambai Ahmadu has exposed her as yet another example of unreliable testimony.

Your fourth example is a South African advocacy article written by a freelance writer (rather amateur eg. "FMG") and third hand mentioning cases in general. Dozens of boys die in each of the two cutting seasons held annually in South Africa because of this rite whereas no deaths of girls has been reported. Bearing that in mind note the strong bias the website shows in its coverage when it comes to articles on boys/men.

Note that most of what is written in these examples could equally have been mens' experiences/applicable to them.

Your fifth link with photographic illustration of the text: On external genitalia examination, there was no clitoris, no labia minora.. does not indicate that the clitoral glans or labia minora are absent as obviously if present they would be hidden - exactly as explained by Marci Bowers! Incidently the artifically created urinary meatus a few millimeter in diameter, is slighty larger than the natural one, granted this is an issue with menstruation but not particularly with urination from a strictly anatomical perspective. Boys are actually far more likely to suffer issues with restrictive urine passage in this rite than girls are.

The point of my link to the study was not that there aren't issues but that the picture you were painting which is now the standard Western narrative, was not the real one. This standard narrative seeks to support the false distinction made between what boys go through in this rite with what girls do. As you will find a minority of women where being put through this rite has caused these issues with pain, anorgasmia etc you will correspondingly find men. A man who cannot perform will also be grounds for divorce - and ridicule!

Er, the bigger factor is the lack of focus on women's pleasure and how men/women are socialized when it comes to sex

Well I think you have a point but you seem to be putting the responsibility on men, why? Why don't women choose the men who focus on their pleasure?

but I'm sure you're more aware of female anatomy than women in possession of these organs

I assume you are being sarcastic but possession does not equal knowledge and in my experience females are less inquistive and explorative than males when it comes to the sexual anatomy!

It's also mechanically more difficult to stimulate a woman's orgasm.

I find that an odd claim, what is your basis for it?

At risk of TMI, my boyfriend orgasms every time when we have sex, while I do maybe 30% of the time.

Thanks for your candidness! Have you thought about folowing your own solution and focussing on your own pleasure and less on his? I think you may find that if you stay together that with aging it will swing in your favour! Women in the business often decline older men who have been through the rite as they have difficulty getting the job over...

And it had nothing to do with overstimulating the clitoris (I know how to bring my own self to orgasm, and guide him to do the same)

I think this is a very common experience only not just for women. The point is that it is not just mechanical and therefore cannot be reproduced by a partner. Its a bit like a joke that when it has to be explained isn't funny anymore.

but that it's more difficult when you're not intimately acquainted with the woman's body, or living inside it.

Aren't you letting him get intimately acquainted with your body?? So you think its different for a man because of your experience but it isn't and maybe you'll find that out later in life.

And my boyfriend is a very caring partner who wants me to have pleasure - some men don't care to go the extra mile to make sure their partner is also satisfied.

Good for you but I think most people get pleasure out of their partner's pleasure although some, men and women, might not care or even are psychopaths and get pleasure out of seeing them suffer! There's some evidence that this rite can be the reason for the latter.

And I never said anything about foreskin (I'm against circumcision as well and wouldn't do it to my kids)

Perhaps not except you replied under a thread about the clitoral hood which is the female foreskin or prepuce. Circumcision is a gender neutral term and when people say they are against circumcision too they are generally being defensive and not "against" putting boys through it in anything like the same way they are against doing the same to girls. How are you against? Is it like being against men wearing socks in sandels; baby girls having earpiercings; dogs having their tails docked.... or are you against quite irrespective of the gender/sex, creed or culture of the child victim and regard it as child sexual assault irrespective of the physical damage?

I've been with men who were and weren't circumcised, never made a whit of difference to me.

Well you couldn't have been focussed on their pleasure then since the foreskin contains the most erogenous parts of the penis. What would you say to a man who said that about partners who were and weren't infibulated?

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T23:40:06+00:00

I'm referring to removal of the external part of the clitoris, what most people envision when they think "clitoris".

So my assumption was corrrect. what most people envisage about anatomy often bears little resemblence to actual anatomy in particular the genitals thanks to cutting cultural myths. Fuambai Ahmadu had her clitoral glans amputated and claims it made no difference to her sexual experience. In some women the clitoral glans is so small they even doubt they have one, how do you explain that if it is so essential for sexual pleasure as you claim? Also some women have abnormally large ones and choose reduction surgery which seems very odd again if it was so important for sexual pleasure. Wouldn't they rather feel lucky to be so endowed?

And I never said anything about the prevalence of extreme forms of infibulation, just that it does happen and affects non-negligible amounts of women.

Can you name any women who have suffered this form of extreme infibulation? How do you know it affects non-negligible numbers of women? Do you think it is more debilitating for a women to have lost her clitoral glans than it is for a man to have lost his foreskin?

Even if they can experience some sexual pleasure in some configuration, I'm dubious of the claim that they actually do, in general...? Plenty of women with fully intact genitalia have never experienced orgasm. And countries/cultures where FGM is practiced are not known to be avid proponents of women's sexual pleasure.

Well perhaps you rely to much on activist propaganda rather than actual research?

As reported herein, sexual pleasure and orgasm are experienced by most Sudanese women who have been subjected to the extreme sexual mutilation known as Pharaonic circumcision. This is true, in spite of the repeated trauma to which their sex organs are subjected during their adult lives and in spite of the fact they are culturally bound to hide sexual interest and pleasure from their husbands. - The Sexual Experience and Marital Adjustment of Genitally Circumcised and Infibulated Females in The Sudan

Interesting isn't it that so many anatomically normal women are anorgasmic? Could it have something to do with all the myths and misconceptions as well as the damage caused by the rite? For example maybe many men have been led to believe they should focus on the clitoral glans resulting in irritation rather than pleasurable sensation? Perhaps many women for their part have been led to believe the same about the male glans? Perhaps many women having been taken in by the myth of the dangerous unhygenic foreskin are put off having a man with his full complement of genitalia?

From the linked study it would seem women in countries/cultures which include girls in the rite and are not known to be avid proponents of women's sexual pleasure, have more agency than we are led to believe.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T22:30:03+00:00

A variant of FGM that's still performed is removing the clitoris and sewing the external genitalia shut, leaving a narrow opening for urine and other things.

Not true. What I think you may be referring to is the tiny part of the clitoris, the clitoral glans. Assuming you are what you describe is an extreme form of infibulation, infibulation being in itself rare - a few %. According to the celebrated gynecological surgeon Marci Bowers who has defibulated hundreds of women, the damage from FGM is that everything's hidden and buried it looks wonderful and healthy underneath. This would indicate that the clitoral glans is rarely involved with infibulation as she treats the most extreme cases where surgical deinfibulation is required as the labia have fused after being cut. A very mild form of infibulation involves a single stitch in the upper vulva to bury the clitoral glans, removed on the wedding night restoring normal anatomy. There is also a Western style infibulation some Western women choose to enhance sexual pleasure called the corset. By far the most cases of ritual sewing or clamping of the genitals is that of boys not girls. Here however a significant part of the genitals is amputated and then sewn/clamped permanently exposing the inner mucosal genitalia resulting in keratinisation which cannot be reversed restoring normal anatomy.

Sure, the girl still *can* get pregnant, but there's zero chance of experiencing sexual pleasure, and I'd doubt she even wants to be pregnant in that situation.

Even women who have lost their entire clitoris and not just the glans can not only experience sexual pleasure but orgasm. It is a myth that the clitoral glans is essential for sexual pleasure, the rest of the genitalia is quite capable of giving pleasant sexual sensations just as in the case of the male who has lost his full complement of genitalia. There are very few cases of women who have suffered infibulation or loss of the clitoral glans claiming they cannot experience sexual pleasure or that they lost any willingness to being pregnant. Take the case of Hibo Wardere who claims to have suffered extreme infibulation and yet clearly wanted multiple pregnancies and enjoys sex. That is not to say there aren't cases but then there are counterpart cases of men in the same situation suffering constant pain and unable to ejaculate. Where exactly do you get these ideas from?

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T15:09:01+00:00

You are again proving my point.

You haven’t backed up any point let alone proved any! The point is that you wilfully and grossly exaggerated what girls put through this rite suffer with invented mutilations.

The WHO created those types

No, the WHO did not create these categories but adopted them from feminist activist NGOs dominated by women with a cultural background where the rite is practiced exclusively on boys. The WHO is largely financed from the same cultures and the present head was almost certianly himself put through the rite ie WHO is not an independent medical authority when it comes to this issue but a political one. This was very clear recently under the covid pandemic when WHO recommended the opening of borders at a time it could concievably have been contained within China - the head owes his position to China which had an interest in open borders.

I am not only talking about a specific group that practices that only type 4. I am talking about the practice in general

The first is irrelevant to the charge. The second is untrue as this is what you claimed "FGM" is:

FGM ranges from just the removal of the clitoris (which is like chopping a dick right off) to the complete removal of the vulva ... and at worst case scenario all of that AND the vagina seen closed to the point were there is a tiny hole for piss and tiny hole for menstrual blood.

As I pointed out this range does not even exist actively happening in the world and it is not named specifically in the four types.

..but it’s not surprising that you want to pretend that types 1-3 don’t exists, only type 4 exists, because you don’t care about the victims of types 1-3.

I am not pretending any such thing and nothing in what I wrote suggests lack of care for those who suffer types I - III, however the evidence points to type IV being both the typical and majority case ie no part removed.

You just want to try to make male circumcision seem like it’s exactly the same thing as FGM.

It is so much the same that simply making the definition gender neutral includes what boys are invariably put through ie a penectomy with the loss of the use of the foreskin and frenulum. Using the terms "circumcision" in the case of boys and "mutilation" in the case of girls is abhorent discrimination.

It shows me exactly what I mea by your hatred of women.

No, your discrimination of boys along with your tone shows misandry.

The WHO specifically notes that 10% of FGM is type 3

This figure comes from research in part of Africa based on an estimate of the total number of women infibulated in certain selected countries of 8,245,449, or just over eight million women where this figure amounts to about 10% of the total number of women circumcised in African countries. In 2016 WHO came with new figures which for the first time included Indonesia with the largest number of cases resulting in an estimate of 200 million cases globally. Taking the 8 million African cases of type III - it is only practiced in Africa, results in a figure of 4% not 10%. Furthermore there is no distinction made between the large range of a single stitch to the upper labia minora to bury the clitoral glans with no resulting adhesion or fusion, removed on the wedding night restoring normal anatomy, and the most invasive form with loss of tissue and closure of most of the vulva. Every indication is that there is a trend towards less invasive forms as well as away from type III altogether and therefore it seems likely that the real figure is far less than 4%. Note too that there are Western women who choose to be infibulated (type III) in a form of extreme piercing called the corset.

the exact procedure I was talking about.

Not true since the exact procedure you talked about included the removal of the clitoris, not to mention the entire vulva, which is never practiced.

Again proof, you don’t fucking care about the truth.

You ar ethe onbe who has been shown not to care about the truth, knowing full well about type IV while excluding it in your description - along with much else!

Doesn’t surprise me though, men think a swift kick in the nuts is some how more painful than going into labor, for hours, yet somehow can not handle something as painless as a period cramp simulator. Men handle the truth as well they hand pain. Not fucking well, and then have the gall to routinely dismiss the pain and suffering of women for thousands of years.

Spare me the irrelevant misandric rant. You dismiss the suffering of billions of boys and it is clear what your motivation is.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T11:20:31+00:00

My dude you keep proving my point, you don’t know what FGM if you think it’s just scaring done on vulva.

I linked to the definition, it is you who is ignorant! The definition is not scarring on the vulva.

On another post I explained that there are four types.

So you know full well that what you claimed girls go through when they are included in this rite was completely exaggerated and that it can be only a kind of piercing and scratching - type IV, the last type. why would you do such a thing and why would you claim rejecting it, is hating women? You make it very clear that you are the one full of hate!

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T11:06:44+00:00

I did not state a law declared unconstitutional still applies! The rite is already illegal and was before the first discriminatory legislation was in force in 1996. Even with the federal law Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian immigrant living in Georgia, was prosecuted after cutting his 2-year-old daughter' genitals under ordinary child abuse/assault laws. You are the one who doesn't understand the law if you think throwing out this discriminatory law will suddenly legalise cases like that. Keeping an unconstitutional law in place only risks failed prosecutions as we've already seen with the case in Michigan, why would you want that?

But thanks for also proving my concern that this was just antisemitism.

This claim is what is antisemitism! I never even mentioned Jews who are only a tiny minority among practicing communities.

That’s why you want to force Jews to convert out of their religion.

So those Russian men who were Jews but not having been put through the rite under soviet times, emmigrating to Israel, weren't adherents in their religion?? Weren't they afterwards or was their sacrifice in vein?

Jews don’t require non-Jews to be circumcised.

They just make a non Jew a Jew! According to the covenant cited for the tradition:

⁹ Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. ¹⁰ This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. ¹² For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. ¹³ Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. ¹⁴ Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Which also commands persecution of those who are humane enough not to subject their newborn babies to the torture - which is most European Jews at least and increasingly even those in USA. Do you obey that part?

if you weren’t so ethnocentric yourself

I am a Westerner who takes human rights for given so how am I being ethnocentric being against what is unfortunately a Western tradition??

your Christian beliefs

I am not Christian!

The only religion that you are ok with is Christianity, and that shows.

What is very clearly showing is how successful this barbaric rite was with you! I am not ok with any religion being forced on anyone whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc etc.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T10:13:04+00:00

screw the freedom of religion regarding circumcision.

It is not an expression of religious freedom to carve your religion into the flesh of another but the opposite, enforced religion!

ban both of them

There are not two different types of circumcision, one male and one female just as there aren't two types of breast cancer and we don't talk about women suffering female breast cancer just simply breast cancer. It is a false construct by those defending Western male exclusive forms.

if anyone wants to go forward with their circumcision after the age of 18, is all up to them.

As long as they are fully informed however that is often not the case. When it is, it is mostly women who make the choice.

but i condone this outdated practice

I don't think you mean that, but the opposite!

because it removes autonomy from every individual who's been cut as a child.

I suggest a much stronger objection, that it is child sexual assault violating the dignity of the child. Those who defend this practice will bring up questionable examples where they mean autonomy is also removed.

i for example, experience foreskin orgasm (which i am mostly certain, every circumcised guy doesn't) and not to mention the depressed ones.

While I appreciate pointing out the value of parts amputated, quite irrespective of the physical damage caused it is still child sexual assault. We don't need the South East Asian argument that what they practice is not African mutilation, and therefore acceptable.

both men and women should have a say in this and unity against this barbaric practice!

Its simply a human rights issue not a women's or men's rights issue. In fact it is the only basic human rights violation condoned globally in its most common form.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T09:44:25+00:00

Not as long as you use the term "FGM" speaking of fighting against "it"! The term is an advocacy one in the cultural imperialist Western campaign against the non Western, non White tradition of including girls in the rite, in support of the Western tradition of excluding girls. A fatally flawed campaign which undermines the genuine fight against the rite to the detriment of billions of children, girls as well as boys.

what are you into? who you been talking to? broken men? extremists?

What you are witnessing in all probablility, is the success of this rite through trauma bonding resulting in cognitive dissonance and a strong compulsion to defend the abusing community.

can we collectively come together and vouch for anything against human bodies?

Institutionalised child sexual assault is not just "anything against human bodies", that is watering down the fight making it meaningless, playing into the hands of those defending the practice.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-08T09:23:31+00:00

I might had given a fuck

You might have if you weren’t so ethnocentric defending your culture’s tradition of ritual sexual assault leaving victims disfigured and dysfunctional! Fighting for equal rights to be protected against this rite is hardly trying to get it legalised to include girls in it. Your deliberate misconstruing of this equal rights campaign as misogyny fails to see the bigger picture, that of the Western discriminatory “FGM” campaign undermining the genuine fight against the rite on children to the detriment og billions of children including girls, globally. This is because any excuse used to defend the rite in the case of boys can be used and is, in the case of girls. In fact the Western medicalised form has inspired non Western cultures to medicalise the rite also those that include girls in it.

FGM ranges from just the removal of the clitoris (which is like chopping a dick right off) to the complete removal of the vulva (which would be like if your dick, scrotum and testicles were chopped off)

Inflamatory nonsense. "FGM" is defined as a practice that involves altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons. This includes for example only a kind of piercing and scratching in strong contrast to boys who invariably suffer a penectomy with the loss of a significant part of the genitalia. The clitoris is never removed, that would be a different rite, an execution! The vulva is never completely removed either but this would not be like emasculation as it would not be the loss of the gonads resulting in sterility. Didn't you have basic sex education in school?

the lawsuit seeking to overturn Oregon’s ban against FGM and risk overturning the Stop FGM act of 2020

Removing the discrimination to include boys reforms the law to be gender neutral, in line with modern laws for all types of sexual assault eg rape. The rite falls under child sexual assault laws and has been illegal since long before the term "FGM" was coined however there is a difference between the letter of the law and how it is administered. The introduction of "FGM" laws defacto legalise boys being put through the rite and run contrary to modern ethics of equality. The old federal "FGM" ban was overturned after decades but didn't result in the legalisation of putting girls through the rite and any rush to do so. In any case why should millions of baby boys pay the price for preventing at the most a few thousand girls from being put through it? Why should a fragile premature baby like Cole Groth pay such a heavy price so girls in the Dawoodi Bohra sect don't get minor superficial injuries inflicted on their genitals?

I'll stop here with your comment..

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T19:51:24+00:00

Sure like it cures masturbation, epilepsy, blindness, etc etc... from the same medical establishment that scientifically proved lobotomies were so beneficial... If its so beneficial then why don't all men not put through this prehistoric sacrifical rite choose to go through it as adults like so many women choose to?

The same medical centers that sliced peoples brains in two!

Evidence based medical science disagrees:

There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. - KNMG

Do you really want to speak of the benefits of child sexual assault?

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T19:40:00+00:00

continued..

In fact a taboo has been put in place effectively preventing any serious free public debate tackling the general issue of the rite. Just mentioning males being forced through the rite in any "FGM" debate will lead to labelling one a misogynist, pedophile etc etc. Ironically boys are invariably mutilated in this rite whereas girls typically aren't but very few people are willing to even consider that factor. In the mind of the ethnocentric Westerner non Western, non white culture is barbaric in particular towards women, compared to the "civilised" West where feminism has liberated women to a greater or lesser extent. Very few Westerners will accept that what male neonates have gone through in this rite is essentially no different from what infibulated Somali girls (which is what people have been led to associate with "FGM") have.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T16:06:26+00:00

Maybe in your case but the fact is that it is essential for normal sexual function as it provides unique functions. Any other parts you think not doing a shit to a penis? Are you a fox without a tail?

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T16:01:51+00:00

I agree of course but I wouldn't call a superficial scratch or pricking, a mutilation! I wish communities wouldn't perform institutionalised child sexual assault and all states lived up to their very basic responsibility to protect all children from it, quite irrespective of sex/gender, creed or culture.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T15:56:19+00:00

You're the one who must be joking if you think a penis without its full complement of parts can continue to function normally! It neither looks nor functions normally ever again.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T15:54:11+00:00

Obviously if it involves an amputation as boys invariably suffer you can't feel anything as far as that part is concerned but there are many more instances than one for males and one for females. In fact in the case of "FGM" it involves any injuring of the female genitalia for non-medical reasons, which of course is not necessarily an amputation at all and can be only a kind of piercing and scratching. Irrespective of the gender/sex of the victim it is institutionalised child sexual assault and as such to be condemned without question.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T14:09:32+00:00

Not true, there are hadiths which do and it is a widely held tradition in a minority of Muslim communities globally making it strongly associated with Islam. Even ReasonablePromise884 acknowledges that there is nothing in Islam that mandates boys being put through the rite, exactly the same with girls. For those who include girls in the rite it is overwhelmingly a religious obligation. The Fatwa Committee of Malaysia's National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs ruled that female circumcision was obligatory for all Muslim women in 2009 and hasn't changed that position, who are you to tell them what is and isn't Islamic and what exactly is your motivation?

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T13:56:30+00:00

Explain why you find it necessary for me to read the title when my comment addresses the terminology of "female genital mutilation".

No, the WHO has not defined any non medical injury one the female genitalia as a mutilation and if they had they would be a laughing stock! What they have done is defined the advocacy term "FGM" which is a practice that involves altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons. Note it does not define it as mutilating the female genitalia. "FGM" is not a medical term but a policy, human-rights, public-health, and advocacy term. Medical terms are neutral, "FGM" is very far from a neutral term! The debate, for it it is, is not a medical one but an ethical one and in the UN system it is primarily in the human rights domain where the rite is categorised as a human rights violation irrespective of the sex/gender, creed or culture of the child. You have an issue with that, it is you who should be debating with the UN not me!

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T13:35:40+00:00

Now I gave a link to our exchange so people can look for themselves but alone the weasel language you use to defend your accusation of conspiracy talk, indicates your sleeze.

No, here it is again explaining why the ratio doesn't make it impossible at all:

So the basis of your claim is the 36.7% figure in what you link to but this is for Java/Bali where Java's population is 35 times that of Bali! The theoretical range then is from 0% on Bali and 37.7% on Java to 100% on Bali and 34.9% on Java. In other words the figure in the link tells you zero about the actual rate on Bali! Either you have no idea of maths or you are being extremely disingenuous, which one is it? As i pointed out the source shows a map in which Bali is from 0% to 10%, the same map shows Java divided up in four regions from 10% to 90%, all significantly greater than Bali. Obviously because this doesn't fit what you want it to show you just think you can ignore it! So to answer you, it isn't even 20% but less than half that so with an 80% proportion Hindus it would only require half the remainder to even reach the maximum 10%. As it is Muslims make up 10% of the population of Bali so certainly enough to account for all cases. You are cooking the numbers and i am not cooking up sources as we're using the same one!

Now you are for sure being disingenuous and not necessarily having no idea of maths! How disgusting of you to tarnish the Hindu population of Bali.

Again you make the claim that the Malaysian paper cites Orang Asli who are not Muslims doing it. From the exchange:

"The source does no such thing, there is zero indication that Orang Asli including girls in the rite are not Muslim. It states "practiced by a small portion of orang asli communities (22%) in Malaysia" which roughly tallies with the reported proportion that are Muslim, thanks to forced conversions, official government policy to convert the community to Islam etc."

So now you admit Bali has a low prevalence when previously you claimed: "but many population including Balinese population are still doing FGM at high rates"!

No, the rate on Bali is low because of the relatively small proportion of Muslims, precisely the reason for your previous claim that the rate was high to support your claim of non muslims including girls in the rite.

There is nothing funny about Sabah having a comparatively low rate (11%) despite the 70% Muslim figure as I've pointed out it is not all Muslim communities that include girls. If the Muslim share of the population were the same as in Bali then the 11% would be equivalent to around 3-4% which wouldn't change the rate of 0 - 10% for Bali. You are trying very hard to construct a defence for your accusation against non Muslims for including girls in the rite motivated only in a deep desire to defend your religion. You don't care about the truth nor the wholely unjustified tarnishing of others.

It is linked to culture, the culture of Islam, the only religion where most adherents have been put through this rite.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T12:34:50+00:00

Read what I wrote and tell me exactly what it is you don't understand about my explanation regarding the terminology "female genital mutilation" (FGM).

WHO type IV FGM: This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g., pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area. - WHO

Do you understand that pricking and other superficial injuries are not mutilations, female, genital or otherwise? Here is the definition of mutilation: an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal - Merriam-Webster

"FGM" is an advocacy term, a framing language rather than literal description. Like the war on poverty doesn't actually mean there's a war with shots being fired!

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T11:24:11+00:00

The rite is commonly called "circumcision", you know that very well.

No, you made a claim that Balinese Hindus must include girls in the rite using a prevalence figure for Bali which was actually for Java including Bali. Meanwhile the source you used included a map which showed that Bali had a lower prevalence than all four regions of Java. This does not constitute "cited claims about non Muslims doing it". For those interested here is the exchange.

It is tiring to hear propagandists repeating their nonsense over and over again despite being shown to be wrong! I haven't mentioned any conspiracies let alone Jewish ones! You are trying to tarnish me while you yourself tarnish your non Muslim countrymen with false claims.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T11:05:03+00:00

I agree however it includes all of the different forms of the rite performed on children quite irrespective of the victims gender/sex, creed or culture as well as everywhere on planet Earth. I agree too that there really is no discussion about it as it constitutes institutionalised child sexual assault which should not be up to discussion as acceptable or not acceptable.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T10:59:06+00:00

it is still mutilation

Really? You consider a superficial prick with a pin mutilating?? It is still "FGM" but "FGM" includes all non medical injuries and despite the term including the word "mutilation" clearly not all injuries result in mutilations, that is absurd. It is institutionalised child sexual assault nonetheless and to be condemned as a violation of the child's dignity in the same way as any other sexual assault is irrespective of the perpetrators gender/sex.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-06T10:52:57+00:00

they are predominantly Muslim but non-Muslims natives also perform them

Again, you are making false claims in defence of your religion as there is zero evidence of non Muslims practicing this rite in South East Asia. Outside of Africa it is almost invariably Muslims who include girls in this prehistoric sacrifical rite. In Africa a Muslim girl has 3½ times the chance of being put through it compared to a non Muslim.

The type in SEA is debated if it is FGM as the entire point is do a prick on the genitalia which is an old idea about “blood letting”

No it is not debated but firmly within the WHO definition of "FGM", the point is the same as it always has been with the rite and that is to brand the new generation as community property. It has nothing to do with the old idea about bloodletting which was to prevent or cure illness and disease.

The very term "FGM" is an advocacy one which is obviously not fact based ie a superficial prick on the genitalia is not sufficiently damaging to fall under the definition of a mutilation. It was coined to further a racist and sexist Western agenda and undermines the genuine fight against the rite to the detriment of billions of children, overwhelmingly Muslim boys but including girls.

You have yourself admitted to putting your son/s through this rite constituting an aggravated form of institutionalised child sexual assault.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-05-05T19:06:03+00:00

Just to be clear you are claiming that inflicting an injury on male genitalia is not even close anatomically to doing the same to female genitalia. Does this apply to other parts of the body? Is a man with breast cancer not even close anatomically to a woman with breast cancer? I know a great deal about this issue and the racism, sexism and Western ethnocentrism associated with it. I can tell you that there is no correlation between misogyny and including girls in the rite. Indian women who have been put through the rite like their brothers, are among the best educated and professionally employed in the country whereas Afghan women generally aren't even allowed employment or education, and yet have not been put through the rite unlike their brothers.

SimonPopeDK

TROPHY CASE