In general that's true (about it being less awful) but female genital cutting can describe a variety of practices, including one that really is equivalent, where they only remove the clitoral hood.
And guess what? When it's done to a girl everyone in the civilized world STILL considers it awful. A while ago there was a controversy when a pediatric group in the US suggested it would be OK to do a symbolic nick on girls to satisfy parents and hopefully stop them from doing something more drastic elsewhere. And this still horrified people, even though it's obviously minor compared to what is done to boys.
do you think being circumcised is mutilation?
← View full post
It's clearly less awful than "female circumcision" but interfering with a baby's genitals when it's not a medical necessity is clearly abusive.
--
Couman
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
In general that's true (about it being less awful) but female genital cutting can describe a variety of practices, including one that really is equivalent, where they only remove the clitoral hood.
And guess what? When it's done to a girl everyone in the civilized world STILL considers it awful. A while ago there was a controversy when a pediatric group in the US suggested it would be OK to do a symbolic nick on girls to satisfy parents and hopefully stop them from doing something more drastic elsewhere. And this still horrified people, even though it's obviously minor compared to what is done to boys.