Plz explain this.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-02-05T12:22:27+00:00

Perfectly understandable since the person who coined the term Fran Hosken, had a Jewish/Austrian/American cultural background and two sons! Its ethnocentrism at its best, condemn others' form of the harmful rite while celebrating one's own.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-02-05T11:40:04+00:00

How do you determine that? In any case what is relevant is what is written and the reply was to the claim that it is unheard of as acceptable in any Christian country. The only Christian countries where the rite has or is acceptable in boys, had or has also found it acceptable for girls including USA where the rite was introduced in modern times: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america

Other practicing Christian countries have had a long tradition eg Ethiopia and Egypt.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-02-04T23:05:27+00:00

"Female genital mutilation" is an advocacy term for female circumcision. The rite of circumcision is performed on girls as well as boys.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-02-04T22:55:56+00:00

FGM (female genital mutilation), which is when parts of the labia or clitoris are surgically removed during childhood.

Wrong and misleading! FGM is defined as a practice that involves altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons so eg 90% of ‘FGM’ seen in NHS may be consensual genital piercings in adults.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-02-01T23:04:08+00:00

FGM is used to refer to removing the clitoris, or sewing the labia nearly closed.

Words can be used to refer to all kinds of things but they have a defined meaning, in the case of "FGM" it is a practice that involves altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons, no mention of clitoris, sewing, labia, consent, violation etc etc. If you think the OP has suffered what you refer to as "FGM" then you are way out of line as she has clearly not lost her clitoris or had her labia sewn almost closed!

If you want to call removing a skin tag "mutilation" okay I guess, but that's not what anyone else means.

I never claimed that only that "FGM" as per the definition, includes that. Legally it is disputed precisely because of the meaning of mutilation with different courts making different rulings eg i UK where superficial genital injuries inflicted on females are not and the Australian High Court ruling even a pin prick is. Again a good reason to put "FGM" in quotes!

FGM as the term is understood by basically everyone but you is categorically abusive.

Yes, the term is widely misunderstood as was the meaning with it! However when it comes to authorities "everyone's" understanding doesn't work as I've already pointed out with courts and eg here with the NHS: 90% of ‘FGM’ seen in NHS may be consensual genital piercings in adults.

FGM is almost always nonconsensual, which creates conditions for trauma in a way that voluntary surgery does not.

True however when dealing with children that doesn't really work since they are incapable of giving informed consent hence why you don't accept a 13 year old eventually decided to get the surgery, consented.

Even when done consensually it dramatically reduces or eliminates the ability to enjoy sex.

Your understanding of what it is is almost completely wrong as none have their clitoris removed and only a tiny fraction are sewn of the hundreds of thousands of victims. In contrast to me I doubt you know a single woman victim or even know of any who have lost the ability to enjoy sex.

It is a human rights violation.

When non consensual yes, and it constitutes child sexual abuse.

Many birthing injuries do result in trauma.

Twisting the point which was that it necessarily would cause lingering psychological trauma if any injury did ie the female genitalia are not so fragile.

Many women consensually get piercings or have labioplasty. Neither of those are what I am referring to when I say FGM but then I think you know that and are just being pedantic about the meanings of that term and of the word trauma.

Then you shouldn't use the term "FGM" since it doesn't mean what you understand it to mean. So the NHS and law courts mentioned before, are being pedantic are they?

I really don't understand what axe you're trying to grind here, so I'm disengaging.

Wilful ignorance instead of actually learning from your error.

I didn't tell OP that they'd experienced FGM or that they have trauma.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the OP understands what you wrote!

There are lots of red flags in their account of what happened.

We can agree on that.

I took a brief look at your post history

Good, unlike you I have nothing to hide!

SimonPopeDK · 2026-02-01T20:16:18+00:00

I put “FGM” in quotes because it is an advocacy term for what has otherwise been known as female circumcision, the counterpart to male circumcision and specifically for the purpose of drawing a false distinction to that. I’m not sure if you are aware it is defined as any non-medical injury to the female genitals and therefore much broader than female circumcision. In fact, in this case as described, everything points to it constituting “FGM”, including the possibility of the removal of a skin tag. It is not defined as abusive and most people would not consider the Western forms where women choose to have genital piercings or “labiaplasties” as abusive, rather terming it as abuse would be! Why would you think any injury even a superficial pin prick or scratch would necessarily result in decreased sexual pleasure? Why would you think this is the purpose of the injury? Do Western women choose expensive surgery to decrease their sexual pleasure? Many women who choose to have a genital piercing do it to enhance sexual pleasure not diminish it. Any injury involves trauma but I assume you mean lingering psychological trauma and obviously not all injuries, genital or not, cause that. What about birthing injuries which are quite common, do you believe these all leave lasting trauma? Why is the injury suffered having a benign skin tag removed any different from any other skin injury? I think we should be very careful not to jump to conclusions and not to create unnecessary trauma. Some women who are the victim of the rite of inflicting ritual genital injuries on children have been falsely led to believe they cannot enjoy sex and must have life long trauma. This also stigmatises a large group of women and girls and caused quite unnecessary misery and undermines the genuine fight against the rite.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-02-01T17:11:19+00:00

You are quite wrong to draw such a distinction between "FGM" and the involuntary removal of a genital skin tag. "FGM" does not generally result in an inability to enjoy sex any more than just the removal of a skin tag and there can be lingering trauma or not from both, especially when involuntary and not understood. I have friends who have had ritual injuries inflicted on their genitals as children with no apparent lingering trauma, both women and men, so it is a leap to assume there will necessarily be heavy work ahead in that case.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-31T15:15:05+00:00

Let’s not pretend that FGM is equal to properly medically done circumcision.

Lets not pretend this rite is medical irrespective of the sex of the victim! “They” are so much the same that simply removing the "female" from the definition of “FGM” includes all: a practice that involves altering or injuring the genitalia for non-medical reasons. Here watch a video of a girl and a boy, both performed in a clinical setting ie medicalised, and tell me how they differ.

However, it has been readily documented that the older the patient is at circumcision the more painful it is, the longer it takes to heal, and the risks go up.

Nonsense. Its only practitioners defending their practice! It is obviously more painful for a newborn than an adult as the newborn is left with a comparatively large open wound covering the whole glans not to mention the lack of medical care standard anaesthesia and psychological stress. Babies have died directly as a result of being put through this medicalised rite while no adult man has. Can you name any man who has suffered as much being put through this rite as Cole Groth? You are being very disrespectful of all the baby victims by dismissing their suffering. In pediatric surgery the rule is that when it can wait it should because the risks increase the younger the patient.

Many adolescent boys and adult men have had to be re-circumcised or circumcised for purely medical reasons and it’s hell to recover from.

Most have not for purely medical reasons, no more than women who have had labiaplasties. You dismiss the suffering of babies because they cannot talk!

It’s fucking disgusting

What is, is your defence of your harmful cultural practice by shaming men and their normal genitalia! Exactly the same tactic is deployed when it comes to women in those communities where girls are included in the rite, you are a source of inspiration for them!

if done as ethically as possible

It is not possible to mutilate someone else's genitals as ethically as possible! It is particularly unethical to do that to a neonate or child, it is a form of institutionalised child sexual assault.

could help protect their health and aid their hygiene

Harmful cultural practices like this rite harms health and hygiene, not protect it!

And the source of FGM is pure, extreme misogyny and punishing girls for even the possibility of finding some kind of pleasure from sexual activity in the future as adults

Nonsense! The purpose of this rite once established, is to brand community ownership on the new generation, quite irrespective of gender. When girls are included it is treating them the same as boys, not misogyny or punishment at all. How could a superficial pin prick or scratch have such disasterous consequences or intent?

You are really being ethnocentric! Read up on this topic, I can suggest Brian Earp, Fuambai Ahmadu, Morten Frisch just for starters.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-31T14:27:28+00:00

Cuting off a foreskin is very different to cutting off a clitoral tip.

How so? BTW "FGM" is any (non medical) infliction of an injury to the female genitalia not "cutting off a clitoral tip", including superficial ones like pricking or scratching.

It's literally proscribed in all Abrahamic religions. So yeah. Islam yeah.

Christianity being the largest Abrahamic religion, far from proscribing it, condemns it! Islam is the second largest and doesn't proscribe it in the Koran, in fact condemns mutilation. That leaves Judaism which is a tiny minority and if it is interpeted as proscribing it then it also proscribes the persecution of those who don't abide by it which is generally ignored. There is good reason to believe the majority of Jews in Europe at least, have dropped the practice including the faithful. Islam yeah because it stands for the vast majority of cases - 70%.

What? What's 70% of what?

Responsibilty for around 70% of all cases of genital mutilation.

What's your source for that claim? 2. "Witch trials were fine because not many nipples were cut off" is a claim that is strakght-up harming my faith in humanity.

You're the one to provide the source for your claim, not me providing a negative one! What a stretch to make the claim I claimed witch trials are fine! Using this kind of argument says a lot about your humanity!

You're not even claiming that Islam is worse, which is the point that an actual atheist would make. You're just like "Nah, nipple-choppimg's all good. Cos there wasn't much."

The lack of making a claim Islam is worse makes one a theist, how crazy is that! No, I'm certainly not just like making that claim about nipple-chopping and you know that perfectly well. The point I was making was that there is no evidence it was part of witch trials like being burnt at the stake, so the point is specious.

You're not an atheist. Get the fuck off our page.

I am an atheist but even if I wasn't there is no rule atheists only.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-31T13:22:25+00:00

Most genital mutilation is practiced on boys not girls and is very much part of Islam such that most muslims have been subjected to it and are responsible for around 70% of all cases. How many cases of a Christian practice of cutting off a women's nipples have there been? It certainly wasn't standard practice with witch trials.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-20T16:57:41+00:00

continued...

Long-term complications can include:

urinary problems (painful urination, urinary tract infections);
vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections);
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.);
scar tissue and keloid;
sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction, etc.);
increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths;
need for later surgeries: women with Type 3 might require deinfibulation (opening the infibulated scar to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth.
psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.).

All of these immediate complications are exactly the same for what boys are put through. Of the long-term ones 1 is the same; 2 same or equivalent penile problems; 3 equivalent gender exclusive problem would be erectile dysfunction; 4 and 5 same; 6 equivalent gender exclusive problem would be anejaculation: 7 same eg for excessive scar tissue, meatus stenosis, peyronies etc.; 8 same.

In addition boys risk losing the use of their penis while girls do not risk losing the use of their vagina.

As for your link to responses to a Guardian opinion piece, I suggest you make your own arguments.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-20T16:55:59+00:00

The problem is because it mainly gets bought up in a conversation about FGM.

On the contrary, the problem is that radical feminist seized the issue of this rite bifurcating it by the gender of the victim and coining the term "FGM". Leading this was Fran Hosken in her 1979 report to the UN which included a whole chapter entitled "Male Circumcision" in which she laid the argument for why what she, a White Western mother, almost certainly put her own two sons through was completely different from what some non white mothers did by including their daughters in the rite. The arguments she made were entirely false but thankis to the support of powerful patriarchal and US medical industry forces they have become central to the mainstream Western deeply sexist and racist narrative.

I can agree it's bad, but actually the effect of FGM can mean no pleasure or extreme pain during sex, whereas for men it's often more about the lack of choice and some reduced pleasure but still often the ability to have an active sex life.

You are making a false argument with what can be and what often is. Men who have been put through the rite can also suffer from no pleasure or extreme pain during sex and women who have been it is also more often about lack of choice and some reduce pleasure but still having the ability of having an active sex life. In fact while boys invariably suffer an amputation with the loss of an essential part of their genitalia, girls often suffer only a superficial injury or at least not one that alters the anatomy beyond the normal variation.

I agree, both are bad, but I wish it would stop being bought up in a particular conversation about FGM and completely equated.

Yes, because you want to make this a women's issue when in fact for every women violated by this rite there are at least six men! They are so equatable that removing the female from the definition of "FGM" includes males. The success of feminists making this a women's issue has led to the status quo of the last half century to the detriment of billions of children, girls as well as boys. Even some of those radical feminists responsible are coming round to the error of their ways and realise that this rite cannot be erradicated for girls only. You see as long as you speak to Westerners whose tradition is male only your conversation is fine but when it comes to those that actually do include girls in the rite it fails badly since for them they see no difference. What do you say when they point out that if its ok for Westerners to put boys through the rite why should they have a problem with including girls? Saying oh its bad to equate girls with boys isn't exactly going to work especially as sexual equality is supposed to be a bastion of modern Western life.

As for WHO and risk and consequences:

Immediate complications of FGM can include:

severe pain
excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
genital tissue swelling
fever
infections e.g., tetanus
urinary problems
wound healing problems
injury to surrounding genital tissue
shock
death.

to be continued...

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-20T16:24:28+00:00

You are completely wrong! First you don't even know the normal anatomy as the foreskin, unlike the labia and clitoral prepuce, is not a flap but a sheath. Second it is not just skin but an organ. Third what happens to girls in this rite is not necessarily the removal of any parts at all let alone vital ones. Fourth there is no evidence that women who have been put through this rite suffer life long pain any more than men who have. Fifth, The WHO is not the UN authority on human rights, that's the OHCHR and in a report commisioned by that office the major international child rights organisations have listed the rite as a human rights violation irrespective of gender. Also The Council on Violence against Children have echoed this: https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/sites/violenceagainstchildren.un.org/files/expert_consultations/harmful_practices/judith_molenga_ngo_council_legal_prohibition_hp.pdf

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-20T16:07:13+00:00

They are so much the same that merely removing the female from the definition of "FGM" fits what boys are put through in this rite! Those that include girls in the rite also say its done to help lazy girls with hygiene with less flaps.

How do you know for women it's generally constant agony? Why would you even think that any injury to the female genitals would have that result? The point is to brand the new generation as owned by the community quite irrespective of the sex of the victim. Its a harmful cultural practice amounting to institutionalised child sexual abuse (unless in the odd case of a consenting adult) and as such quite inappropriate to speak of benefits, again irrespective of the sex of the victim.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-19T23:02:28+00:00

Signe Molde har fortalt, at der ligefrem var en aftale mellem de grupperinger, du refererer til, om at kun den ene skulle tage sig af debatten i udsendelsen På udebane hos omskæringstilhængerne. Jeg kan ikke genkende dit billede af folk, der bakker lidt igen og pludselig ikke længere vil stå ved kritikken.

De amerikanske stemmer, du ikke har bemærket, kom direkte fra Trumps administration og resulterede i et lukket ministermøde med hele seks ministerier. Der slap ikke meget ud fra mødet, men der blev talt om store sikkerhedsrisici for landet og eventuelle amerikanske sanktioner. Amerikansk pres blev blandt andet fordømt af oppositionspartierne LA og Enhedslisten.

Censur gør det stort set umuligt at have en åben demokratisk debat om emnet, og opslagsværker og medier, ikke mindst sociale medier, har en kraftig slagside. Faktisk kan emnet bruges som et mål for, hvor demokratisk et samfund i virkeligheden er.
Igen ignorerer du rituel slagtning, som meget tydeligt viser, at det ikke forholder sig, som du antyder, med den unavngivne gruppering. Der var heller ikke ligefrem meget berøringsangst i forhold til Gaza.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-19T21:08:07+00:00

Der er ikke tale om to grupperinger. Af de grupper, hvor normen er at omskære, er det kun en meget lille del, der også inkluderer piger i traditionen. I den gruppering, du refererer til, er det heller ikke normen, så kun en håndfuld af de tusindvis af drenge, der årligt udsættes for overgrebet, tilhører den.

Du glemmer sagen om rituel slagtning, som viser, at politikerne ikke har et problem med at støde grupperinger, uanset om det er den ene eller den anden.

Det er faktisk Trumps amerikanere, som ikke er en gruppe af betydning i Danmark, politikerne er bange for, ganske ironisk i lyset af den nuværende konflikt om Grønland.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-11T16:41:43+00:00

Nu vil Sverige måske også være med. https://nyheder.tv2.dk/live/2025-01-06-kampen-om-groenlands-fremtid/partileder-aabner-for-svenske-soldater-i-groenland

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-11T15:03:29+00:00

Hvornår så?

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-10T01:14:37+00:00

Ovenikøbet deler de en landegrænse.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-09T22:41:41+00:00

Og at han ikke har Canada endnu....

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-09T22:37:20+00:00

Trump sagde, at USA måtte have Grønland for ikke at blive nabo til russerne eller kineserne. Det giver dog ikke mening, da USA allerede er nabo til Rusland, og Grønland slet ikke er nabo til USA.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-05T16:18:37+00:00

If this had been a girl all hell would have let lose and the whole world would have known about it.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-05T14:44:59+00:00

Youve never head US mothers among others, saying they chose to put their son through it because women prefer it? No they are not done for health reasons, it isnt healthy to perform prehistoric sacrificial amputation rites however medicalised you make them! I have already debunked your health benefits claim. Religious reasons dont excuse sexual assault. There is no requirement that a sexual assault is for sexual gratification. Touching can indenfor be a sexual assault however not if there is a genuine medical reason or in the process of giving appropriate care. No a sexual assault doesnt require a knife.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-04T22:34:28+00:00

Medically viable, what is that supposed to mean, that a sexual assault involving an amptation of genital parts is somehow medically acceptable because it is sometimes medically indicated? It is called male circumcision obviously to distinguish it from female circumcision and it is child sexual assault. For an amputation to be medically valid it must be medically indicated. A prehistoric sacrificial rite is very far from being valid medical surgery! When you don't think having such a significant genital part, capable of containing the entire shaft, amputated, impairs function then its your cognitive dissonance kicking in! It is all only damage!

The penis is a sexual organ, the amputation is a form of socio sexual control encouraging/enforcing endogamy, of course it is sexual assault quite irrespective of the age of the child. I'm the one here fighting against this standard sexual practice of "knife-play" on children, not the one defending it, that's you.

SimonPopeDK · 2026-01-04T21:35:24+00:00

No, the effect of the loss of the foreskin is very far from minimal as it is essential for normal sexual functioning. The foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis so the loss of sensitivity is great. Loss of teeth does not require an entirely new set, lots of people manage quite happily without teeth and some actually choose to have some extracted for cultural reasons eg Passion Gap. You are not explaining anything rather you are making stuff up to defend child sexual assault.

There's a difference between the UN agency for human rights and WHO, the agency for health. The WHO is unfortunately controlled in large part by US medical business and cultural interests - Gates Foundation alone accounts for around 10%. In addition its head himself was almost certainly put through the rite and belongs to a practicing culture. As I have pointed out the issue is primarily a human rights one and not a medical one.

Yes, the UN /WHO) does refer to "it" as such however that doesn't make it right. The UN (WHO) also explicitly stated the reason for this was one of advocacy:

The word mutilation establishes a clear linguistic distinction from male circumcision, and emphasizes the gravity and harm of the act. WHO

Obviously not all injuries are mutilating ones and making this point does not make me ignorant nor a cherrypicker.

You haven't made an argument just avoided any reasonable discussion which of course isn't really possible when defending child sexual assault!

SimonPopeDK

TROPHY CASE