I am doing a research on FGM practices in the Philippines. I’ve found some websites that directs me to FGM. . . Philippines but when I open them there are no mention of ‘FGM in the Philippines’. I’ve been informed that is a practice in some parts of the country and would like to sight some articles, research or statistics to this effect. Also, what level of severity is practised there?

Could you please help? BTW your article is very informative.

Kind regards,
Fiori

well thats informative…

are you saying there are errors in it? what are they? its impossible to tell from your post whether you think Nancy Reyes is too critical of FGM, or too apologetic.

personally, i thought she took a rather balanced position.

Apologies.

I disagree with one thing you say tho: “”"Indeed, I have no strong opposition to the milder types as a custom that allows cleanliness (similar to the health improvements for circumcized males).”"”

I concur that these procedures may desirable, even beneficial, for some subjects as elective surgery in adulthood, but the fundamental right to bodily integrity overrides any purported health benefits if the procedure is performed on infants or children.

This should always be the accepted position, even if not the rigorously held or public one, of anybody seeking to discourage or ameliorate the harms of genital cutting. Anything less leaves room for the charge of hypocrisy.

Children should not be subjected to genital cutting. Thats a position that’s easy to understand. It may be unrealistic to pursue it as an immediate goal, but i think it lends coherence to a campaign against the more severe forms of FGM.

As a circumcised male, I feel scarred, reduced and harmed by the loss of my foreskin. I’m far from alone in this, and yet there is a general refusal in Western medicine to recognize that this might be a common outcome of routine infant circumcision. Given this situation, where is the moral authority to criticize FGM?

Genital cutting seems to be most vigorously defended by those men and women who are themselves cut. While cutting has health consequences, it should not be primarily understood as a question of health outcomes, but as one of psychosexual and cultural dynamics, and as an ethical problem.

As for the rest of the argument, I applaud your efforts to emphasize the range of severity inherent in the different forms of FGM. There is a tendency among activists to represent all FGM as equally harmful, but given the extreme disfiguring and medical problems associated with the more radical forms, i think you are correct to insist that some forms cause more severe health problems, and represent a more urgent public health and human rights concern.

Type I FGM may seem trivial compared with common forms of male circumcision (which involve resection of most of the erogenous tissue of the penis) but the negative sequelae of male circumcision are far less severe than those of a procedure such as female infibulation, and it is correct to draw attention to these contrasts.

I’m very disappointed at my discipline. One thing that’s being ignored by the critics is that there are a LOT of African and Arab anti-FGM women, men, and ex-excisers who are fighting to end this practice. To tell them “oh, it’s not so bad,” is indeed patronizing and racist.

So when Jacob Hickman says that we need to actually listen, we will probably hear a very different voice, not necessarily one that supports the practices as he expects. But, these women’s voices, as usual, are being completely drowned out by all the shouting back and forth, and by the “we know better than you” attitude.

It’s a real shame that this discussion has been going on since the 1970s (starting with the infamous Ms. article, Fran Hosken, Mary Daly and others), and is STILL not resolved!

I guess the current attitude in anthro is not too surprising considering anthropologists’ “dark history”. This is a real shame; it’s counterproductive, distracting and unnecessary.