Talk:Female genital mutilation

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


I understand it was practiced a little in the West +100 years ago. Cure diseases such as les'banism, and maybe self-abuse.Civic Cat (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WHO report.[edit]

Our ref dismisses the WHO report on male circumcision saying:

  • (It was) based on studies that have long been questioned, and never proven beyond the correlation of the two incidents.

The WHO report seems to refer to some five studies in making its case and it's not clear what "two incidents" are being referred to.

While I personally find the idea cutting of bits of people to be pretty weird, that doesn't mean that studies which suggest that there may be a connection between male circumcision and the reduction of aids transmission are wrong. If the studies are faulty then we need to be somewhat more clear on what's wrong with them.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. no, seriously, the studies on HIV transmission are correlation studies ONLY. They do not address the fact that AIDS in africa is not tested for, but is assumed in many many people based on symptoms. They do not address the behaviors of the men involved, nor do they address the differences in culture between men who are circumcised (most are "christian" or muslim, and have different sexual behaviors) and non circumcised men in Africa. The studies in the US and UK looking at gay men and circumcision have NONE OF THE SAME correlations. Yet WHO documents continue to use the existing studies in africa as a premise for their views. One scholar who is quoted here, states that in his opinion, the WHO is looking for "justifications" for allowing circumcision in men, since it's overwhelmingly popular in the US, and in muslim countries - to be voting blocks in the UN. None of this is in here, cause it's on male circumcision, and cause I just started improving this article yesterday, and it's going to take lots of work to read the documents I've got in front of me - but that said, the evidence is pretty shoddy that there is any real connection between circumcision and AIDS. Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Without replying point by point, what are the "two incidents"?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it some more, they quote these trials, a couple of which were in the Lancet:
  • iiGlobal HIV Prevention Working Group New approaches to HIV prevention: Accelerating research and ensuring future access. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation & Henry. J. Kaiser Family Foundation 2006.
  • iiiWeiss HA, Quigley M, Hayes R. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS 2000;14:2361-70.
  • ivBailey C, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369: 643-56.
  • v Gray H, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomized trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-66.
  • vi Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2005;2(11):e298.
They also refer to "randomised controlled trails" which rather suggests they were not looking at simple correlations.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, i know the trials. I also know the critics to the trials. Again, US and UK studies do not show the same correlations. And how are you going to have a *moral* *ethical* "random trial". are you going to circumcise 10 men, and not circumcise 10 others, and have them all have the same type of het sex with HIV positive women? the idea they were "random control trails" is bs, unless they are unethical. Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The other aspect often challenged by critics of these studies and the "advice" to circumcise adult african men is this: why can you not posit a medical reason the forskin would cause more infection in men. It does not cause wounds, for the hiv virus to get into (remember, most transmission of men is anal, not from the penis...), so what "medically" is going on. again, no answer from teh pro-circumcise group. It is one of those very political discussions that doesn't seem to come from actual medical studies. Again, if read about vaginal to penile transmission in the "western" world, you have to ask what else is happening in africa. I'll tell you what else is happening, but it has nothing to do with normal sex. It has to do with the culture around sexuality, the culture of rape, and the culture of violence. But hey, let's just circumcise the men. that will clearly fix everything. Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's not attack strawmen, Godot. The report quite clearly said, and I quote
2.1 Male circumcision should never replace other known methods of HIV prevention and

should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes: promoting delay in the onset of sexual relations, abstinence from penetrative sex and reduction in the number of sexual partners; providing and promoting correct and consistent use of male and female condoms; providing HIV testing and counselling services;

and providing services for the treatment of sexually transmitted infections.
It's not advocating "circumcize the men and everything will be fine", but rather "this will help decrease transmission rates, so we should add it to the list of things we can use to combat AIDS". I'm frankly amazed that male circumcision is apparently such a huge moral panic all of a sudden, when there really are better things to be going on and on about that are actually a threat, like, for instance, AIDS or FGM. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not read the reports in The Lancet but it is a peer reviewed scientific journal. One imagines that if there were systematic errors in the studies then they should have been picked up by the journal itself or identified by the peer review process. After all, that is what the peer review process is for.
I wouldn't doubt that the articles have been criticized. I would imagine that every significant article ever published by The Lancet has been criticised by somebody. The question is who criticised them and is the journal thinking of retracting the studies.
The Lancet is the pre-eminent medical journal and the WHO is the world body charged with disseminating medical advice. Furthermore New Scientist has printed a number of reports along the same lines.
Again I'm no fan of circumcision just for the sake of it and I would not want to suffer it myself, but if we are going to reject what looks like a scientific consensus then we need some pretty hefty scientific fire-power to shoot down "The Lancet" the WHO and "New Scientist".--BobSpring is sprung! 10:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Consented FGM[edit]

What if a woman wills to do it? No pressure (especially not religious), she's already over 18, knows the possible consequences, etc. ZILtoid1991 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

France "catches up"...[edit]

Here's the thing, and I think the phrase after it sums up nicely most of my views on rules. Why is it necessary to specifically outlaw genital mutilation when you have laws against child abuse? Surely cutting up children is abuse, right? It's like bringing in terrorism laws, it seems to imply that it was illegal before hand! We learn from and legislate against too many too specific examples. Adkgraffiti.png...I'll swim your plastic! 15:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's like bringing in a law to explicitly say that you can't assault people in the street and cut their hands off.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the genius of Louisiana lawmakers, I cannot shoot at the police with laser cannons. I especially cannot throw snakes from a third story building. Tytalk 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Surely cutting up children is abuse, right? - Ah, therein lies the rub. As far as I am concerned this statement is fine but are we really going to say that all those circumcised boys have been abused? Cue flame war. From time to time there is a need to specifically move some actions from the acceptable to unacceptable - think of corporal punishment as another example. So yes, in a perfect world, etc, etc, but, here in the real world, we do need to be occasionally very specific. Bad Faith (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily, the real world actually doesn't care about how we categorise things. It throws us things all the time that we're not precisely prepared for, and we get confused so add it to the list of things we don't want to happen. Until the next thing comes around again. What you're describing is actually the effect of this process, not the reason behind it. Adkgraffiti.png...I'll watch your arc welder! 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Jumping in late (cause I'm actually working, shocker - that's why this article is coming piece mail) there are some differences. 1) is the penalty of one crime different from the penalty of another crime. 2) Is there an attempt to discourage a social aspect of the behavior. (Ie., we all know abuse is wrong, but what *is* abuse? I think ironically, France's particular law has more to do with hatred/distrust/bias against the Magreb, than anything that actually is there to protect little girls or boys. Their view on male circumcision (which is, by the way, where I see some of the strongest arguments against the UN position on hiv/aids) is that it, too, is abuse. But they aren't politically motivated enough to be running down a bunch of jews. Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Labial/VCH piercings[edit]

Anyone want to go down that path? Or is it okay if you do it to yourself voluntarily? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't seriously want to, there's no way you do. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, what seems to be missing from the FGM article is some semblance of input from the individual experiencing the act. I think there's a tacet understanding, as with most male circumcisions, that it is perpetrated onto the individual when they are too young object--but that understanding appears to be missing from this article. Do people voluntarily participate in FGM upon themselves? Otherwise, there's very little in the article to differentiate those kinds of piercings from a form of FGM that would be considered "awful" or "illegal" (as described in the article). The mention of the fibula in the article struck me as strange, because it appears to be exactly the same as a labial piercing, only involuntary because it was done at infancy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Piercings do not take out parts of the body, any more than male piercings do. I'm sure there are some body mod procedures that do, but they are extremely rare. virtually no adult women get this done, any more than adult men get circumcised. there are ritualized procedures (including tattooing, pricking, or nicking) that both men and women do when they are adults converting into various religions. (Judaism, for example, requires adult males to prick their thumbs, not cut off their willies). And again, what you do to yourself is body mod, not mutilation. Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
"Do people voluntarily participate in FGM upon themselves?" Have you readLynn Thomas's classic article on just that question? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. The poem (?) just from the link you gave is shocking. the article I'm sure will be eye opening.Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you don't have JSTOR, let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I would love that if you wouldn't mind. I've lost my university access, so I have to go in on weekends.Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Male genital mutilation[edit]

I'm going to remove the whiny statement about how circumcision is supposedly genital mutilation. It sounds like the dredges of the arguments the MRAs left behind, and it has no place in the article because "mutilation" implies destroying or removing a vital part of something. Circumcision, unless done wrong, does not match that definition, and removing a bit of unnecessary skin hardly justifies a moral panic. Any objections?Rational guy (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there any specifically that you are talking about? Certainly, circumcision is genital mutilation, although on the scale of things it is less traumatic than the female version. Tielec01 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think he's referring specifically to this section. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with this? I don't see any problem with pointing out the stupidity of circumcision? It doesn't seem over the top. Tielec01 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It does seem a little over the top for something that's more or less off topic. Sure, there are valid concerns about male circumcision, but this is an article about female genital mutilation. It should be possible to discuss that subject online without it being derailed by "what about the menz?" comments every time. Maybe you could move those comments to our article on circumcision where they would actually be more relevant? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the Weasel makes a valid point. While that comment does pass the "snark" standard, it does so in a very cliché way that does a disservice to the topic at hand. I say modify it so it can be moved to the article on circumcision and kept out of the female genital mutilation article. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I personally woudl not remove it, because it's contextual to this topic. WHO treat male and female mutilation differently - and it's worth pointing out, cause it sets up a whole list of issues about views of the body, views of circumcision, etc. I can see moving it to a foot note, but saying "a political origination in control of large sums of money, thinks that we should treat issues of cutting parts of our body off - differently if it's a girl's body or boy's body". Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The variance is rather more complicated than "differently if it's a girl's body or boy's body". I doubt that the WHO would endorse castration, for example, regardless of how effective it might be in retarding the spread of AIDS. There's certainly scope for looking at why WHO and other organisations view FGM and male circumcision differently, prioritise one issue over the other, and whether they're right to do so, but it would belong better in the circumcision article (which sort of covers both to some extent) or possibly in an article about the WHO rather than here where it looks like a bit of a tangent. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
fair enough.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


It appears as if this is a fairly emotionally-charged topic; stepping through the diffs since it's inception, I see edits ranging from one extreme to another. Just looking to keep some objectivity, so that personal feelings won't negatively affect the quality of the article. Refugeetalk page 21:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so a paragraph with relevant information, well cited, is deleted due to "personal ownership" of the article. Waiting for Godot, I used to have more respect for you. You shouldn't let your personal bias interfere with the quality of the article. Also, the tone and language of your paragraph is not all that great. But so be it. Refugeetalk page 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure your edits are exactly objective, either, giving the way you talk about religion and a 97% rate in somalia. If you want to include these two paragraphs, probably need to find a better section - maybe the section under how prevelant it is? maybe the section under the UN? pulled the "ref" tags, just cause i'm not smart enough to know how to keep them without them causing errors. sorry. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 22:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, absolutely no personal bias on religion. I don't care, I am not religious. I just see the correlation between some religions and the oppression and mal-treatment of women. Refugeetalk page 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
So, we are going to keep this snarky paragraph by Godot: ........."But, not so fast Before we go patting ourselves on the back about how great the Western world is, to not be doing such horrors to women, it was less than 100 years ago that doctors felt the appropriate way to cure women's "hysteria" was to give them a hysterectomy - often whether they wanted it or not. Reports are surfacing that even as far as the 1990s, it was common on Native American reservations to tie women's tubes[20], or even sometimes give them a hysterectomy to prevent the savages from breeding more savages - again, usually without their knowledge. And just 10 years ago, a judge ordered a drug addict's tubes be tied, if she wanted to be released from jail. Control over women, their bodies, and their sexuality is not something reserved for those "primitives" in some "exotic place", nor for the "foreigners" who's "religion is sickening".........
while removing this one that I added: .........However, the fact remains that FGM is more prevalent in certain parts of the world, and in societies that are dominated by certain religions. (Is that politically correct enough?) So, we see a greater than 97% FGM rate in Somalia, a Muslim-ruled society, while right next door in Kenya, a predominantly Christian society, the rate is less than 27%. ref: Similar statistics are found that correlate religion and FGM in other countries as well. Therefore, it is not entirely possible to separate the practice of FGM from the religious norms of the community as a whole. Still, FGM is a human rights issue more than a religious issue, more specifically a women's rights issue. Even more specifically, an issue affecting children, as this procedure is most often done on girls of a young age (under 10 years old). And, without anesthesia. The World Health Organization states: "Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways... and causes immediate and long-term health consequences... babies born to women who have undergone female genital mutilation suffer a higher rate of neonatal death compared with babies born to women who have not undergone the procedure... Seen from a human rights perspective, the practice reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. " ref: ......

OK then. Refugeetalk page 22:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No... you know what? I'm not going to accept that so easily. Go ahead and keep your paragraph detailing how one idiot judge decreed that a women had to have her tubes tied 10 years ago, and that a treatment for hysteria was surgical removal of the uterus 100 years ago, if you really think that's germane to the article on FGM, and adds important insight, fine. But I am going to re-add the paragraph about this being a Human Rights issue for women, and more specifically for children. (cited with refs). Along with the observation of how the correlation between religious norms of a society and FGM is more than casual. If you don't want it directly below yours, ok, it can go in another section. Thanks. Refugeetalk page 22:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I was actually the one who SUGGESTED you do just that. sighs.... Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 23:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok then, so now that I DID just as you SUGGESTED, (you even "sighed" about it) and made it's own section, why have you now moved it, fragmenting the ideas and merging only select parts of it with another section, while conveniently leaving out the entire section about human rights violations and children's rights - despite the fact that World Health Organization backs me up on this, you have disappeared this part: "FGM is a human rights issue more than a religious issue, more specifically a women's rights issue. Even more specifically, an issue affecting children, as this procedure is most often done on girls of a young age (under 10 years old). And, without anesthesia." which is echoed by World Health Organization: quote: "Seen from a human rights perspective, the practice reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. " From It is ridiculous that you have such "ownership" over this article that you instantly remove entire sections that are totally relevant and accurate, yet leave in crap about one judge who declared a woman should be sterilized 10 years ago, and what the medical community did to treat hysteria 100 years ago... seriously, this is insulting and annoying, and degrades the article. Since you have to "approve" all edits and shuffle everything in this article, go ahead and have it, I don't intend to try to contribute to this page again. I am annoyed because this is an extremely important topic for women, and it could be an excellent article without you meddling and single-handedly deciding what you want to stay in it. But go ahead, it's all yours, I'm done here. sheesh. Refugeetalk page 06:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thankfully, another editor removed some of the less worthy stuff that was in this article. I removed the cannibalized edits (you didn't even spell Somalia correctly, and removed the percentage while continuing to compare it to Kenya's percentage) I have some good info, solid refs, and an idea on how to add it to the page to make it better, and will be doing that soon. This has the potential to be a good, informative article that dispells myths, and starts people thinking more about this important topic. Refugeetalk page 02:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Waiting for Godot, you need to read this talk page before you edit the page. As I stated above, my intention is to include more material, so stop playing around with my edits. Refugeetalk page 06:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
And to Proxima, do not re-add disputed material to the page, especially when I've clearly stated my intentions to add my original edits and the manner in which I will do this. You also re-introduced mis-spellings, as well as created new erroneous spellings and non-accurate information. Do you think you can just keep your hands out of this until it's ironed out?? Refugeetalk page 08:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge Request[edit]

I don't see a reason why this article can't be merged with circumcision in a page called "Genital Mutilation". The circumcision article is already about 30% female information anyway. Unless the circumcision article is suddenly expanded by 5 sections I don't really see a need to keep the two on separate pages. - Hobby (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

'Circumcision' and 'female genital mutilation' are distinct phrases and phenomena and I think it would be unwise to merge them. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
While that's true, there's no reason not to use redirect to specific areas in the article that use hese phases, such as section titles. Alternatively, merging the two will get rid of the pathetic circumcision article, which is less than 500 words long and STILL carries a female genital mutilation section. Hobby (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the circumcision article. If you think it should be longer, add to it. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You mean aside from the fact that a segment on circumcision was removed form this page but the opposite is not true for the circumcision article? Never mind, you obviously don't get it. Anyway, I'll have a crack at it in a month or two when I've finished packing up my life. Hobby (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say they should be kept separate. I also think the the page on Circumcision says more then enough on Female genital mutilation.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That's fair. Mind giving me a hand on that article. I've made some edits on that page now and I'm good at writing a sentence, but page formatting isn't my strong suit. Hobby (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Here's A Thing That Happened...[edit] Wow. Just, wow. Stay classy RoK! --Chair tater (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aneris' blatant manipulation[edit]

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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! (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...[edit]

...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:

The map, taken from a July 2013 UNICEF report, shows the percentage of girls and women ages 15-49 who have undergone female genital mutilation in 27 Central African countries and two Middle Eastern countries (Iraq and Yemen).

Seven of the top eight countries with very high rates of female circumcision are majority Muslim, including the "almost universal" levels in Somalia, Egypt, Guinea and Djibouti. But Eritrea, as Aslan said, is No. 5 among countries with high prevalence at 89 percent, and it is home to more Christians than Muslims, according to Pew Research’s Religion and Public Life Project.

Ethiopia, which is 63 percent Christian and 34 percent Muslim, has a moderately high rate of 74 percent, making it No. 11 on the list.

So the countries in which female genital cutting is a practice are mostly Muslim, but they are not exclusively Muslim. Of the 29 countries tracked by UNICEF, 14 are home to more Christians than Muslims.

The two Middle Eastern, and predominantly Muslim, countries, Yemen and Iraq, have much lower rates of 23 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Other majority-Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are not listed.

"It is extremely clear that in many countries that have a very high population of Muslims, female genital mutilation/cutting is not practiced," said Francesca Moneti, the UNICEF senior child protection specialist who co-authored the report.

Experts say the practice stems from social pressure to conform to traditions passed down for centuries -- one that predates not just Islam but also Judaism and Christianity. (The origins of the practice are subject to some dispute, but some scholars say it may correspond to areas of ancient civilizations, in which the cutting of females "signalled controlled fidelity and the certainty of paternity," the UNICEF report states.)

In areas of high prevalence today, "this is perceived to be the normal and correct way of bringing up a girl," Moneti said. "If a girl is not cut, she may be considered impure and not marriageable, and she and her entire family may be ostracized."

While it stems from neither Christianity nor Islam, some women in Chad, Guinea and Mauritania report a "religious requirement" as a benefit of cutting. Some communities consider a clitoridectomy -- one type of female genital mutilation -- as "sunna," which is Arabic for "tradition" or "duty," according to the UNICEF report. However, it is not a requirement of the Koran and has been specifically rejected by some Muslim leaders in Egypt.

"There are different positions within Islam on the issue," said Marit Tolo Østebø, a University of Florida lecturer on human rights and culture, global sexuality, and anthropology of religion. "So you would have some Islamic scholars who will say, and might use parts from the hadith, to support that it’s good to do some cutting, but they will often emphasize that it is not an obligation." (The hadith refers to commentary about the Koran that explains the traditions of the Prophet Mohammad.)

The fact that it is also practiced by Christians and other groups with ancient beliefs makes it hard to say the practice is particularly Muslim, she said.

"Very often we tend to think that Islam is one thing -- that it’s one homogeneous religion," she said. "But if we just look at Christianity, there are so many different traditions and views on things. That is exactly the same in Islam."

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

And breathe...[edit]

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?[edit]

Are there people who voluntarily undergo FGM? (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. (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) (Jerry Coyne) disagrees with the article[edit]

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. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 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? (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. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 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…

  • 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.

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)

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 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? ShabiDOO 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:

Female Genital Mutilation occurs in Muslim as well as non-Muslim societies in Africa and is practiced by Christians, Muslims and Animists alike. In Egypt, where perhaps 97 percent of girls suffer genital mutilation, both Christian Copts and Muslims are complicit. Thus, it has long been concluded to be a cultural practice, not connected to religion. 1 Religious views on female genital mutilation (FGM) vary even within the same religious tradition. The only Jewish group known to have practiced it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia.[2] There is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence. 3

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”'.
fnordSince 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).
fnordDoes Wikipedia really say something different? Mine has a section on FGM and religionWikipedia's W.svg 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, Religious views on female genital mutilationWikipedia's W.svg, 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". ShabiDOO 22:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So I read the introduction[edit]

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. (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? ShabiDOO 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. (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. ShabiDOO 02:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)