Talk:Female genital mutilation

Well, Here's A Thing That Happened...
http://www.returnofkings.com/39017/should-we-circumcise-women-to-prevent-throat-cancer-in-men Wow. Just, wow. Stay classy RoK! --Chair tater (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aneris' blatant manipulation
Here's a funny part from Aneris' incoherent wall of text:
 * "Reza Aslan and the so-called “Regressive Left” assert FGM was “not an Islamic problem. It's an African problem”[10] This is not true.[11]"

Ref number 11 linked to this. Here's what the source linked actually said:
 * "We rate Aslan’s claim Mostly True."

How did Aneris got from this the exact opposite conclusion? Typhoon (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris brought to you by the letters D and K. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The only objection Politifact had is that he said it was a central African problem, when in reality it's also present in other parts of Africa. Aneris, however, erased the central part when quoting him, incidentally making his statement now completely true. Typhoon (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I though blatantly altering sources was only something the SJW cabal the runs RW did. Petey Plane (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your problem is that source 11 says "We rate Aslan’s claim Mostly True." and the text says his claim were "not true". If you omit the context, preceeding paragaph, sentence before and also the seocnd source — out of context — and truncated, it looks like a contradiction. But it is none:
 * The preceeding section already points out that FGM is a cultural practice, with a map of Africa next to it. This is not in dispute. The context in this section is the link between religion and Islam, not the "African problem" dimension, which becomes clear in the entire section.
 * This very section began with: "Communities can be disabused from the tradition by education, since it is not prescribed by any religious texts, including the Quran. However, the situation is still different for Islam" giving you again the a) context in which Reza Alsan's statement are placed and b) another time that it's not unique to Islam.
 * Queex Typhoon here omitted not only the preceeding main paragraph and the sentence before, thus removed the context he also truncated it on the other side, by omitting the second source. The part was "This is not true.[11][12]" with two sources. Politofacts (11) shows a collelation with Islamic countries, writing "Seven of the top eight countries with very high rates of female circumcision are majority Muslim" the second (and the whole later text) works out that it's also a middle eastern and Indonesian problem, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country.
 * So yes, Reza Aslan and his "Africa only" and the "nothing to do with Islam" implication is false, as the whole section then goes on to show in detail, each time also carefully pointing out that it used to be a cultural practice which then apparently acquired a "religious dimension" as several sources, human rights organisation, feminist or Amnesti report. For the record, Usual Suspects also again get personal with "Aneris' blatant manipulation" instead of arguing on matters, while ironically cutting away every context ~ Aneris 16:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dudebrah, really, keeping your crank going on about the Evil SJW/FemJay/Athiest+ Conspiracy Cabal does not convince anyone. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really enjoying that you're accusing Queex of omitting stuff while you edited Aslan's quote to remove the 'central' part. And now you're engaging in some truly incredible spinning. You literally inserted a link that called Aslan's quote "mostly true" (and which even had a person from UNICEF confirming it), as source for your claim that it's actually not true. And then you buried it under a gish gallop, hoping that no one would notice? Typhoon (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pro-tip - he does think the rest of us are imbecilic. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We can easily test your claims. Let's assume my quote included “central” before Africa. It makes no difference, at all. If you thought that was really an important qualifier (even though it evidently isn't), you could simply act like a good faith editor and add the “central” into it — problem solved. That's one edit, and I wouldn't object. The argument would simply become: “Reza Aslan claims it's a central Africa problem, but it's a also a problem in other parts of Africa, the Middle-east and Indonesia” and the source would become “source says he's mostly right if taken as an Africa problem but it also points out the correlation with Islam. And, as we now show with numerous other sources, in this context (this section is FGM in Islam) he is mistaken that religion had nothing to do with this”. No matter how you twist and turn it around, his statements remain wrong. You can only achieve your desired result of claiming the opposite by removing all sources. Which is unsurprisingly which happened. It's like reverting to Creationism because you believe that one source in the Evolution update was not on point enough. It tells you a lot. Nobody is fooled by this. The theatre here suggest exactly what everyone paying attention knows already: a Regressive/Authoritarian "Left" (aka Social Justice Warrior) faction of motivated reasoners dismissive of what is true; who are internet-famous for engaging in dogpile, smearing and other forms of flak to push their postmodernist ideology. As a final headscratcher and recent folly, this faction claims it didn't exist. ~ Aneris 17:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So why not originally use (or self-edit) the much more accurate statement of "Reza Aslan claims it's a central Africa problem, but it's a also a problem in other parts of Africa, the Middle-east and Indonesia” instead of your original conspiratorial strawman statement of "Reza Aslan and the so-called “Regressive Left” assert FGM was “not an Islamic problem. It's an African problem”[10] This is not true.[11]" ? Your inability to make any asseration without invoking a "SJW" or "Regressive Left" boogyman is moving you into Alex Jones territory. Petey Plane (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The SJWs did it! It's SJWs all the way down! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Fuck knows why Aneris is name-checking me here because I haven't even edited the article. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw you signed above, but I see the cutting up was done by Typhoon. You only added to that. Corrected this. That makes him also a goal-post shifter with his “central” distraction. ~ Aneris 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Goal-post shifter? As rich as your inner life seems to be, it would probably be better if you joined the rest of us in reality. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The tendency that discussions with postmodernists become murky altogether approaches one. Subjects and disputes disappear behind a wall of fog, while they also argue that there was no such fog at all. “What fog!” They say, and it's used to further hide the dispute. It's obviously also not a strawman. You cannot, in a nutshell, revert and then argue on the talk page there was no revert. You cannot jump into a discussion whilst claiming there was no discussion. You cannot argue Reza Aslan's clains where in accordance with the other sources, and I was unfairly strawmanning him at that one place, while at the same time deleting everything, all the sources, to leave Resa Aslan's (false) claims undisputed. To adduce further to the arguments, have a look at a guest post by Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haider Reza, co-founders of Ex-Muslims of North America, titled “Reza Aslan is Wrong About Islam and This is Why”. Sarah Haider also gave a whole talk — about — eh, nothing apparently, since the regressive/SJW don't exist — saying such things as “an audience on the left frightens me nearly as much as an audience of Islamist does”. It makes you wonder why she would say such a thing! ~ Aneris  19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one's buying your postmodernism hogwash. Every time you get schooled, you scurry behind the term as if that somehow banishes all the spooky scary skeletons. Your faith in your little cantrip is charming, but misplaced. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to obfuscate with meaningless blather about post-modernism isn't bought by anyone.
 * I'm not a post-modernist and in fact reject post-modernism. I'm also not "left" in any way, shape, and form.
 * You attempted a lie by omission by altering the quote. This is a fact. Own up to your lie; God sees thou and knows thy sins. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Altering quotes? The assertion was, scroll up, “how did Aneris got from this the exact opposite conclusion?” and then because I did not include the “central” into the quotation. The first issue becomes clear when you actually read the article, and peruse the sources (more below). The second issue was Aslan's “central” qualifier which was unimportant and didn't add anything, since he not only missed the rest of Africa, but the Middle-Eastern and Asia. He would become more wrong, not less. Had the source include Indonesia and Middle-East, Aslan would likewise come out worse, too. In other words, the quotation is valid, as it did not portray his views in an opposite or distorted manner. It's also logically true, “central Africa” is part of the set “Africa”. Again, the less specific “Africa” even help him in this case but he anyways misses the other regions anyway so it's not important. Further, nobdoy has refuted anything. Only sources were deleted. As a quick and dirty count, we went from 39 sources before the revert to 24 sources in the current version. The bulk on this page were personal attacks, obfuscation and little on the substance (which is, I may add, typical). The attempt to redefine the situation doesn't really work, since everyone can read along. If I'm going to steelman Typhoon's argument, then I can see that he didn't like that the verdict (rather than the data) did not agree with the wording on the page. But even here this verdict specifically says: “his larger point —- that this is not a problem in only Muslim countries — is valid” which the article did not claim. Indeed, it pointed out many times that it was a cultural practice also common in other cultures. It was even the intro sentence of the whole section! “Communities can be disabused from the tradition by education, since it is not prescribed by any religious texts, including the Quran.” Obviously, this cannot be the point of contention. It then follows, however that the practice did have acquired a “religious dimension” and that it was indeed added to Islamic jurisprudence in several Islamic schools, making Reza Aslan even more wrong. ~ Aneris 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Must your every response be a screed of green text justification? Why can't cranks like you utilize terse sentences? --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See: Gish Gallop. "...however that the practice did have acquired a “religious dimension” and that it was indeed added to Islamic jurisprudence in several Islamic schools, making Reza Aslan even more wrong." -Aneris. By your standard, any action can have a "religious dimension", as long as some crank follower of said religion wrote it down somewhere. Petey Plane (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ameris also has yet to justify his inane need to include "Regressive left" in the original sentence (at least he didn't hit his "SJW" macro, i guess). Didn't the source only refer to Reza's commentary?  I'm looking forward to the wall of text he'll need to explain that one.  I'll grab a beer and have a drink everytime i see "post-modernism", "SJW", or "regressive left".  I should be feeling pretty good by the end. Petey Plane (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You say gish gallop, and you demonstrate it too. Not only do I have to argue about the subject matter, but also have to deal with the various allegations that are made on top of this (which however, demonstrably, always drift away from the subject allegedly under dispute → absolutely typical). It's fine by me, since other readers can see exactly what is going on. It is also not “my standard”. That's in Amnesti International ACT 77/06/97. It also states, right afterwards, “[w]here it is practised by Muslims, religion is frequently cited as a reason”, which I didn't include in the article because my quoting was arguably already excessive. I specifically let those organisations and reports do most of the speaking, because I foolishly believed this would avoid reverts and such “discussions”, Heh ~ Aneris 21:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for why you included "The Regressive left" in the original, Heh. Petey Plane (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When you ask like that, I first let you lookup what this means (added link brackets to your text) and maybe Google a bit, and maybe you can be more specific what is, what you want to know. ~ Aneris 22:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see "the regressive left" referenced in either one of the citations for your assertion. How post-modernist of you. Petey Plane (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the name for this ideology, and people like Typhoon (main topics, Sarkeesian, GamerGate, smearing Richard Dawkins, such things), including the recent edit. Since the latest trick is to dispute this whole thing, why don't you explain to me why we lost a good third of sources? Explain you to me, why in reality, organisations point out the connection to Islam; religious dimensions; that there are Fatwas and jurisprudence; while the article in the current incarnation mentions Islam only in passing and exculpatory. What's more interesting, Typhoons technique (see the edit) is also well known. He axed the paragraphs about hadiths, Fatwas and jurisprudence as allegedly not sourced this time. So, he first axed my whole section with all your help, where this was neatly sourced and reverted to a less sourced article. Now he uses the less sourced version to remove even more, since it's not sourced enough (but was sourced in my version). Quelle surprise. ~ Aneris 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ain't FGM...
...a case of tribal traditions using Islam as a vehicle, just like in the case of the "honor" killings (Islam has a system of religious courts and courts normally do not like it, when some punks just go and kill someone without any kinda verdict)?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna quote the Politifact article mentioned above, they did a perfect summary of this:


 * Typhoon (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And breathe...
Clerics issuing fatwas in favour of FGM is not an insane addition to the article. Historically, it's likely very common - cultural practices often end up receiving "official" religious endorsement. It's also an obvious hurdle for those campaigning against FGM, and also one of those uncomfortable truths that some idiots on the left would prefer to ignore / deny in the name of standing firm against Islamophobia.

At the same time, a quick Google suggests plenty of fatwas against the practice. This must be included, too. Robledo (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That entire section was added only recently and is so terribly written I was considering just deleting it outright. The bottom line is, and this is repeated also by organizations such as UNICEF, that FGM is a cultural and regional issue, not religious. Attempts to turn it into an Islam thing fall flat, as many overwhelmingly Muslim countries don't practice it, while there's christian majority countries where it is widespread. Does that makes organizations such as UNICEF part of the "idiots on the left"? Typhoon (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the terrible, one-eyed writing. It is, however, possible (and probably sensible) to acknowledge that FGM has considerable support from some clerics in some countries, without painting FGM as an "Islam thing" in general. The idiocy lies in resisting doing so for fear of being thought to be painting FGM as an "Islam thing" in general. Robledo (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that just because some cleric somewhere supported it makes it now religious. If those clerics converted to a different religion or even became atheists, they would most likely still support FGM. Because FGM has been entrenched in there since ancient times. We're talking here thousands of years. Typhoon (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations: you're a fucking idiot. There's no specific prohibition of contraception or masturbation in the Old Testament, yet both have been widely regarded as verboten thanks to clerical interpretation. I suppose there's nothing "religious" about that, either. Robledo (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By clerical interpretation you mean papal? Islam has no central authority like catholicism has. If some priest or imam approves/disapproves of FGM, it has more to do with the fact they live in an area where it's considered normal/abnormal for thousands of years. THey would have the same opinion even if they were secular. This is why I don't consider it religious. It has everything to do with tradition and culture. Because if by some magical means you turned everyone in Africa into atheists, the percentage of FGM procedures would remain completely unchanged. Also, fuck you too, you imbecile. Typhoon (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article did mention Fatwa for and against it, also spent some time explaining its origin as a cultural practice. It also made distinctions between Sunni and Shia. Maybe reading comprehension is the problem here. ~ Aneris 09:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Protip: your opinion is not relevant evidence. It doesn't matter a dead dog's dick what you think: there are clearly individuals and communities who take pro-FGM pronouncements seriously, and act accordingly, believing themselves to be honouring their faith. The fact that it's "really" a pre-Islamic practice is neither here nor there. Christmas is "really" a pagan winter solstice shindig, but that doesn't make it any less sacred for the devout.


 * The funniest thing about all this, of course, is the fact that there's plenty of Islamic scholars and activists arguing passionately against the conservative / fundamentalist pro-FGM interpretations you so blithely hand-wave away. Congratulations again: you really are a special kind of idiot. Robledo (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary FGM?
Are there people who voluntarily undergo FGM? 79.141.160.23 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. See here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup. Though there's very often some sort of social pressure involved. Even when that's not the case, some argue that one would have to be brainwashed/culturally indoctrinated beyond sanity to want to have it done to them, which would render giving informed consent a physical impossibility. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Reminds me of this German guy letting himself killed and eaten. The court declared that kinda consent invalid and jailed the cannibal for either murder or (literal) manslaughter.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WhyEvolutionIsTrue.com (Jerry Coyne) disagrees with the article
They back & quote Aneris and worry that RationalWiki has swung towards the "Authoritarian Left".

Their argument:

Its original article (the one that’s still there) did everything it can to dissociate the practice of FGM from Islam, even though, as reader Heather Hastie documents on her website, at least four schools of Islam either recommend the practice or deem its obligatory. There have also been fatwas saying that the practice is Islamic, and the vast majority of women mutilated in this way are Muslims whose families follow the practice. Only the blinkered, or those who excuse Islam of all malfeasance, could deny the close association of the practice with Muslim belief.

The comments section (32 ATM) almost universally agrees with the "authoritarian left" point of the author. 05:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, Aneris' posturing paid off. By the way, looking at the edit history of the Wikipedia article on RationalWiki that the blog cites... I am completely unsurprised.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I happen to read WEIT and yeah, people tend to edit articles where they know stuff. Readers can sent in suggestions, and I did a few times, too. This was one of these cases. Problem? ~ Aneris 01:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment section looks like that because it was linked by Aneris on the Slymepit forums two days ago. Another Slymepitter thanks Aneris for a Nice work in getting the 'issues' as regards Rationalwiki out to a wider audience. Do we need anymore proof that Aneris does not consider himself an rationalwikian and is primarily here to push his agenda on behalf of other Slymepitters? Because I can easily link in here other examples of that forum discussing and cheering on Aneris' work in here. Typhoon (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reveal a secret: Mark Zuckerberg is in this too. I shared this on Facebook as well. Despite your SJW typical siege mentality, nobody cares. There are hundreds of comments each day on the Slymepit on everything that goes on in the atheist-skeptics, secular movement and elsewhere. People who saw it on Facebook, comment there, and Jerry Coyne has his own readers. Sorry. and what's your problem after all? ~ Aneris 01:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when were comment sections a reliable source of noteworthy views to begin with? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:25, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Who cares that some random atheist disagrees. I'll go with what UNICEF and other organizations say. And they all disagree with these shitty blogs. Also, I'm happy to see another example of crying about 'authoritarian left'. I'm a center-right European, which I guess would make me a communist in the USA. But hey, at least he didn't use 'Illiberal left' or 'Regressive leftism' or some other ad hominem that these concern trolls like. Typhoon (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They all disagree with your whitewashing. You should know, since you carefully checked the dozen or so sources you threw away, ranging from Amnesti International to New York Times, and other Human Rights and Feminist organisations. ~ Aneris 01:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like Aneris asked Coyne to post this & he did. I have no idea (& don't really care) what the relationship between Aneris, Coyne & Slymepit is, but this doesn't seem like a good way to deal with an article content dispute.  13:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but let's be honest - did we really expect Aneris and his pals over there to do any less? It is what it is. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

How about… Yes, I found that somewhat demontivating too. After all, I wrote on a big article myself, which I deleted now. But of course I also knew about the general situation, just didn't expect it to be that bad. ~ Aneris 03:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's exactly as I have written there, which I also deem obvious. Fits with everything nicely, no need for Lizards, Aliens or a Hollow Earth.
 * WEIT readers can suggest things, which is perfectly normal. I did many times before (as do others). You can as well.
 * He posted it, because it was a hot topic recently. After all, his post (and the article in the NYT) motived me to look into the matter.
 * Nobody from the Koolaid Kult touched the article before. As much I'd take credit for a genius gambit, there would be easier ways to troll them than research and writing a sourced sections (like doing what one does on a wiki).
 * It has as much to do with the Slymepit as it does with Facebook and Twitter. People share items of interest literally hundreds of times a day on the Slymepit alone. I also posted Steeleye Span — Gaudete and whatever else I liked or found interesting. Just because one person responded doesn't make you the centre of the universe. I think more people responded to Gaudete than to the RW thing. Not to trample on your feelings!
 * As eccentric it may seem, Jerry Coyne has his own readers. The bulk of comments are from regulars – like normal business.
 * There is no “dispute” one could “deal” with. Maybe you didn't get the memo. Once an article is claimed by by the Koolaid Kultist, It Shall Not Be Messed With Or Else™. They never touched it before though — not that I checked. It seemed not their hobby horse. There are also no constructive discussions, and obviously, the RW isn't above criticism. Especially since you don't care about what's true.
 * My guess is that the RW doesn't get more criticism because essentially nobody cares and you are out of touch with things anways. Your core audience (e.g. Why Evolution is True) evidently sees no use. Your contemporary articles on things that happen are entirely uncritical and smell from afar of propaganda that, as the comments at WEIT reveal, too, impress nobody. You have not even a concept for that kind of information people might want.
 * Lastly, I have to wonder why you again make it about me. You have your article here, and you want it that way. So don't be hypocritical. Chin up! You decided for Female Genital Mutiliation apologia. Your articles are basically uncorrectable, always lead to a major hassle instead of cooperative writing. Some editors here learned they can revert and undo anytime and get away with it. They just need to coordinate a bit. A big site like Wikipedia can maybe afford it to throw away fully sourced sections, but I doubt that you can.
 * → moved OT here to Jerry Coyne and Evo Psych derail to that talk page.
 * This is fucking nuts. There is clearly some clerical support for FGM, usually of a pretty unpleasant conservative / fundamentalist bent. This is an obvious hurdle for activists in the field who have to try and counter such interpretations in order to persuade  individuals and communities not to engage in the practice.
 * Why the fuck would the article not mention this? What are people so fucking scared of? Any supposed whiff of Islamophobia can be easily dispelled by the logical follow-up point that such pro-FGM interpretations are surely best countered by exposure to alternate lines of anti-FGM Islamic scholarship.
 * Get a fucking grip, you tools. Robledo (talk)
 * Exactly, also the secton was fully sourced and was a balanced, while debunking claims of people like Reza Aslan (which I understood the RW normally does). But the issue here isn't FGM directly, it's more tribalism. ~ Aneris 00:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, your section was (almost) as one-eyed as the idea that it shouldn't exist at all. You'd've been hard pushed to get a clear sense of any coherent Islamic anti-FGM positions from what you'd written. Indeed, its primary function seemed to be sticking two fingers up at those on the left who have a bizarre fit of the vapours when faced with anything even remotely critical of any aspect of Islam.
 * I don't dispute that such horribly misplaced attempts at "solidarity" should be challenged; just not at the expense of good writing. Wind your neck in a bit, and you'll find at least some of your arguments gaining much more traction. Robledo (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It mentioned Aslan with one sentence, which was used to introduce two key aspects: FGM is a problem in Indonesia and not merely an African one, and it has acquired a religious dimension despite cultural origins, which was stated several times. This also had to do with recent sources, like the NYT article. I also made distinctions between different schools of Islam, and between Sunni and Shia, and also stated, twice or more (not sure now) that it's not practiced by a majority or fell out of favour in some parts, I recall the Ayatollah organisation had that. It even mentioned extra that it is not in the Quran. But you can bent over backwards, I'm not buying this here. Normal would be corrections, or if really not liked deletion and mod note etc. Throwing away a third of sources, Amnesti, NYT etc, and then making a huge fuss on talk pages is certainly not normal, especially when the mob has decided the matter quickly. ~ Aneris 02:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a look at some of the edits and my impression is Jerry Coyne just engaged in similar tactics he alleges the authoritarian left uses by misrepresentation and strawmening. No one was trying to disassociate FGM from Islam here in the edits because it's already practiced by some and given religious legitimacy. The edits being made were to strike a neutral POV with some Muslims arguing that FGM is not Islamic. Coyne misrepresented these edits as "those who excuse Islam of all malfeasance [who] could deny the close association of the practice with Muslim belief". FGM is still too widely practiced, about 200 million I believe, but the overall rates in where it occurs is declining. And it's not false to say it's a problem mostly concentrated in Africa if you're making relative comparisons. Indonesia is one country among many, but relatively speaking, it's most concentrated on the African continent.  ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are totally right. The devil 4chan hid the fossils to mislead everyone. Nothing surprises me here anymore. ~ Aneris 14:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some edits to this page as I am an anti-FGM activist. I added material to this article on descriptions of the various levels of severity, post-modern appologists and the prevalance of FGM per country/religion. Other users have done much of the same and have improved the article greatly. I did my best in my additions to frame this practice for the horrific child abuse that it is. If you find this article as appologetics for FGM then you are an intellectual liar and haven't actually read the full article. The practice is called out for what it is in this article, barbaric adults chopping off bits of a little screaming girl's clit/vagina. It is noted that much of the practice happens in the Islamic world but stated (and rightly so) that it is not solely practiced by muslims and that not all muslims practice it. Look up any statistical analysis and you'll see this is the case. Would you like us to lie and say FGM is a totally Muslim thing? Show us the statistics that demonstrate the opposite or STFU already.
 * Four post-modern scholars who have appologised for FGM are heavily criticised in this article...in the sense that...not a single thing about FGM is justifiable. That is about as non-apologetic as an aritcle gets. How can anyone take this bullshit of yours seriously? Shabi  DOO  01:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite that mainstream articles in the press and human rights organisations say — verbatim — that the practice does have a religious dimension and is taken in many countries as religious, the article never mentions this. It also obscures that all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence favour it, and two strongly. It also sweeps under the carpet that the Ayatollah of Iran generally favours it, with some qualifiers (medical and if the husband demands it — the latter obviously doesn't make it better). This makes the article a bona fide pure Regressive Left propaganda piece, and Jerry Coyne and his commenters are spot on about it. Of course I agree, but this agreement in retrospect was evidently not known to me beforehand, after all, people could have come out with different opinions than they did. Also, Indonesia is the big falsification of the “african-cultual" angle the article tries to push. It's evidently an Asian country and it's also the most populous Muslim majority country. The claim that it has nothing to do with Islam and therefore a detailled discussion of “FGM and Islam” was not warranted (it was deleted) is simply against the sources. We also learn how Typhoon and other ultra regressives deal with a matter (who effectively decide through tacit support): instead of discussing why (say) Amnesti International is mistaken, it's simply deleted and a false impression is given. That's however typical here and a systemic problem, where again, Coyne & commenters are correct. ~ Aneris  02:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so you know Shabidoo, Aneris' idea of sources that support his point is posting an article that says one thing, and then trying to pretend that it says the exact opposite. Typhoon (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at what wikipedia says about Religion and FGM:

RUH-ROH, after UNICEF the regressive leftists have occupied wikipedia too. Aneris, quickly warn Jerry Coyne about this! Typhoon (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Female Genital Mutilation occurs in Muslim as well as non-Muslim societies in Africa and is practiced by Christians, Muslims and Animists alike. " Yeah, Totally hiding it there, Typh. Keter (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bad news: The "authoritarian leftists" at UNICEF are at it again!!! Their report states that in "Niger. 55% of Christian girls and women have undergone FGM/C, compared to 2% of Muslim girls and women,". What does the UNICEF know about Niger? They obviously don't have decades of extensive research that Aneris and Coyne have on their internet blogs! Typhoon (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a great help in showing what the problem is. When you write A does it and B does it too, you're hiding special features by pretending A and B were equal. Let's be charitable and call this willfully obtuse. The position I wrote about, and which Jerry Coyne and commenters share is that FGM is a cultural practice, but it was subsumed into Islamic traditions, making Islam a special case, which can be discussed. Nobody disputes that Christians also do it. That's the point of "cultural practice" that many groups do it. The section I wrote was fully sourced, even with many quotations added directly to the artlce. They were taken from human rights organisations, including Amnesti. For example: 'Amnesti International observes in a similar vein that “FGM predates Islam and is not practised by the majority of Muslims, but has acquired a religious dimension”'.
 * Since the general tenor disagrees with your views, we're now trying to promote one source as the one that trumps it all. Very well. UNICEF then! They have a report on a strategy they try, writing "[t]he engagement of religious leaders was widely seen as an effective strategy for influencing change. In regions where FGM/C is considered to be an Islamic obligation, this involvement was seen as a necessary condition for change to take place. The fact that religious leaders openly and publicly spoke about FGM/C, which was traditionally considered a taboo, was perceived as a significant cultural shift." (p. 26).
 * Does Wikipedia really say something different? Mine has a section on and in there you'll find "Although FGM's origins in northeastern Africa are pre-Islamic, the practice became associated with Islam". There is also a special article only for religion,, which features other religions, but is mainly about — you name it — Islam. The RationalWiki article claims however, "... it has become associated with Islam due to the geographic collocation of countries practising female genital mutilation and Muslim countries[11], as well as some level of stereotype.", and that's the general tenor. However, wikipedia isn't itself a source. Politically-religiously charged topics are usually softened and heavily contested. If your article is even weaker tea than Wikipedia, it tells you something. In sum, you're wrong. ~ Aneris  15:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia isn't a source alone...but the 91 primary sources it cites plus the additional 24 sources on this site are. That is true if you don't really understand how encyclopedia's work as a comprehensive summary of information.  I am astonished that someone who spends so much time posting nonsense on encyclopedias doesn't even understand what they are in the first place.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A magnifcent feat, EmeraldCityWanderer. You basically agree, but then you draw the opposite conclusion. Remarkable individuals edit this Wiki, I might say. I hope Jerry Coyne and commenters still read along. ~ Aneris 15:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess we do basically agree that you have no idea what you are talking about. Thank you.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris...after reading your responses here...I see someone totally bankrupt of intellectual integrity...and it pisses me off to no end because we are dealing with the subject of GIRLS BEING HELD DOWN AND HAVING THEIR FUCKING VAGINAS CHOPPED OFF ... not whether everyone who does it belongs to just one religion or not. Who fucking cares? What's the focus of this article? Anti-islam or girls losing their genitals? Fuck off already and go pick some other website to "regressive-left troll". Shabi  DOO  22:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So I read the introduction
And it sounds a bit, um...

So anyway I'm considering undoing this edit, but I thought I'd ask for other people's input first. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * "And it sounds a bit, um..."
 * I don't understand what you mean with the um... What bothers you with the section as it is now?
 * "This edit"
 * That was two years ago and the article has changed a bit since so undoing that edit is sort of impossible. What specifically do you have a problem with? The labeling of each step as child abuse? Describing the gouging out of the vagina as horrific?
 * Or does describing an act of child abuse so that its true severity can be understood...a bad thing in terms of advocacy and dispelling misinformation? Shabi  DOO  01:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you sincerely think phrases like "If that level of butchery isn't sadistic enough for the child's parents" dispell misinformation, then I must say I am intrigued and amused. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Yes...sadistic is an extreme word (in terms of sexual gratification). It can be replaced with "pious" or some other adjective if you can think of one. Shabi  DOO  02:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)