Exclusive: health professionals, survivors and politicians voice concerns in open letter over comments by Fatima Maada Bio, who denies supporting the practice
FGM harms women’s physical and emotional health throughout their lives.[62][63] It has no known health benefits.[11]
There is no valid justification for FGM, cultural or otherwise. I do not care about comparisons to male circumcision. I do not care about the concerns of cultural relativism.
It is a brutal practice performed by barbaric people butchering women in a soulless, sinister, deeply cynical, and horrifically ignorant crime against humanity.
Bear the descriptions in the article at your own discretion.
I agree. Though I also think male circumcision of newborns should be banned. Not as a comparison, but simply because its a surgery with no benefit and measurable harm performed on people unable to consent. Just stop mutilating people.
I give zero fucks that someone’s imaginary friend told them it is necessary.
not at birth, apparently when you develop things like chronic balantitis(not due to infeciton), or something that scars the tissue around the opening it might be prudent to remove it. religious reasons is just asasine.
Both are born out of ancient ideals of purity and control over sexuality (the latter being especially applicable to FGM).
Male circumcision started because ancient humans viewed the human body as a canvas for social engineering. It survived and flourished because it successfully forged fierce tribal loyalty, distinct cultural boundaries, and deep religious identity. It was later justified as a way to curb masturbation.
FGM, in ancient stratified societies, including Egypt and Rome, became a prerequisite for marriage. It signified a woman’s obedience, purity, and readiness to join a household. In several cultures, an uncut woman was deemed “unclean” and socially ostracized, making her unmarriageable.
The foundational justification in almost all practicing cultures was to reduce a woman’s libido. By removing sensitive tissue, societies sought to ensure a girl remained a virgin until marriage and faithful to her husband afterward.
Both practices are a type of mutilation in my opinion but one is not referred to that way due to cultural relativism. I’m glad to come from a part of the world where neither is or ever was the norm.
Not necessarily, at least with regards to historical justifications of male circumcision. For example, desert cultures that had extremely limited chances for things like baths experienced high rates of infection that circumcision notably reduced. And with a high rate of phimosis, the choice between infant circumcision (with lower blood loss, faster healing times and lower rates of complications) and teenage+ circumcision (with worse healing and a higher rate of complications). If 1/3 of your boys and men have to undergo circumcision for medical reasons, is it not better to do it when its the quickest to heal?
Even now, there is significant evidence that male circumcision reduces the chances of HIV (and other STD) transfer in susceptible populations, so circumcision in at risk populations is the common medical recommendation.
I in no way support circumcision as a routine religious/cultural practice, but when there are times and places and societies where it is a genuine harm reduction technique, and throwing those babies out with that bathwater isn’t really helpful, either.
I know the reasons for both. And for both they are either based in cruelty or bullshit. The origin doesn’t matter. What matters is what we do now, and what cruelty we allow to continue.
Knowing how / why is meaningful context in my opinion, simply to make it apparent how archaic the foundation really is. Especially when there are people in 2026 arguing in favor of such practices.
I disagree. The reasons behind cruelty are irrelevant. If it is cruel, that is all that matters. If people try to justify their cruelty, then I can write them off as people worth engaging with.
I’m tired of trying to make sense of the justifications of cruelty and hatred. The reasoning doesn’t matter, the result does.
To each their own. I’m fascinated by how societies may normalize and justify such practices over time but I am a student of history. The why often helps to eliminate the regressive practice in a sustainable way.
I understand wanting to know from am academic perspective, but I no longer believe that it matters for eliminating regressive policies and practices.
The holocaust is one of the most studied tragedies in history. That understanding has done nothing to eliminate genocide.
The Jim Crow laws have been studied and the motivations behind them are well known. Yet those same motivations and strategies are still being used to divide the US.
People largely don’t care. A huge portion of the population doesn’t care about an issue until they are personally impacted.
My ears being pierced doesn’t harm me physically, but it does remind me that I used to be someone’s property and that I could be again. I think “it would look cute” is not a valid reason to violate someone’s bodily autonomy.
Sometimes, yes. When they’re done without consent or emotionally pressured or coerced upon children too young to be capable of informed consent, yes. Consenting adults, fine. Consenting teens or even tweens, fine. Teen who feels socially pressured? No. 5-year-old? No. This is not something that affects your future. This is not something that has some medical or preventive purpose.
Ear piercings may only cause minor pain and have minor infection risks and may not be a serious harm in the great scheme of things, but they set a horrible precedent for consent and bodily autonomy and I find it unconscionable that anyone can defend that unless they are just expressing how normalized it is because of the way it happened to them too. Beauty standards for women are oppressive things that even women tend to unwittingly enforce on each other, and it starts during childhood. It’s not good, it’s not healthy. It’s sick, and it’s malicious, and we need to stop perpetuating it. Let people have the bodies they are born with and accept them as they are, let them decide if or when they want to change it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
There is no valid justification for FGM, cultural or otherwise. I do not care about comparisons to male circumcision. I do not care about the concerns of cultural relativism.
It is a brutal practice performed by barbaric people butchering women in a soulless, sinister, deeply cynical, and horrifically ignorant crime against humanity.
Bear the descriptions in the article at your own discretion.
I agree. Though I also think male circumcision of newborns should be banned. Not as a comparison, but simply because its a surgery with no benefit and measurable harm performed on people unable to consent. Just stop mutilating people.
I give zero fucks that someone’s imaginary friend told them it is necessary.
not at birth, apparently when you develop things like chronic balantitis(not due to infeciton), or something that scars the tissue around the opening it might be prudent to remove it. religious reasons is just asasine.
Both are born out of ancient ideals of purity and control over sexuality (the latter being especially applicable to FGM).
Male circumcision started because ancient humans viewed the human body as a canvas for social engineering. It survived and flourished because it successfully forged fierce tribal loyalty, distinct cultural boundaries, and deep religious identity. It was later justified as a way to curb masturbation.
FGM, in ancient stratified societies, including Egypt and Rome, became a prerequisite for marriage. It signified a woman’s obedience, purity, and readiness to join a household. In several cultures, an uncut woman was deemed “unclean” and socially ostracized, making her unmarriageable.
The foundational justification in almost all practicing cultures was to reduce a woman’s libido. By removing sensitive tissue, societies sought to ensure a girl remained a virgin until marriage and faithful to her husband afterward.
Both practices are a type of mutilation in my opinion but one is not referred to that way due to cultural relativism. I’m glad to come from a part of the world where neither is or ever was the norm.
Not necessarily, at least with regards to historical justifications of male circumcision. For example, desert cultures that had extremely limited chances for things like baths experienced high rates of infection that circumcision notably reduced. And with a high rate of phimosis, the choice between infant circumcision (with lower blood loss, faster healing times and lower rates of complications) and teenage+ circumcision (with worse healing and a higher rate of complications). If 1/3 of your boys and men have to undergo circumcision for medical reasons, is it not better to do it when its the quickest to heal?
Even now, there is significant evidence that male circumcision reduces the chances of HIV (and other STD) transfer in susceptible populations, so circumcision in at risk populations is the common medical recommendation.
I in no way support circumcision as a routine religious/cultural practice, but when there are times and places and societies where it is a genuine harm reduction technique, and throwing those babies out with that bathwater isn’t really helpful, either.
I know the reasons for both. And for both they are either based in cruelty or bullshit. The origin doesn’t matter. What matters is what we do now, and what cruelty we allow to continue.
Knowing how / why is meaningful context in my opinion, simply to make it apparent how archaic the foundation really is. Especially when there are people in 2026 arguing in favor of such practices.
I disagree. The reasons behind cruelty are irrelevant. If it is cruel, that is all that matters. If people try to justify their cruelty, then I can write them off as people worth engaging with.
I’m tired of trying to make sense of the justifications of cruelty and hatred. The reasoning doesn’t matter, the result does.
To each their own. I’m fascinated by how societies may normalize and justify such practices over time but I am a student of history. The why often helps to eliminate the regressive practice in a sustainable way.
I understand wanting to know from am academic perspective, but I no longer believe that it matters for eliminating regressive policies and practices.
The holocaust is one of the most studied tragedies in history. That understanding has done nothing to eliminate genocide.
The Jim Crow laws have been studied and the motivations behind them are well known. Yet those same motivations and strategies are still being used to divide the US.
People largely don’t care. A huge portion of the population doesn’t care about an issue until they are personally impacted.
I agree, same with ear piercings.
Ear piercings harm women’s physical and emotional health?
My ears being pierced doesn’t harm me physically, but it does remind me that I used to be someone’s property and that I could be again. I think “it would look cute” is not a valid reason to violate someone’s bodily autonomy.
Sometimes, yes. When they’re done without consent or emotionally pressured or coerced upon children too young to be capable of informed consent, yes. Consenting adults, fine. Consenting teens or even tweens, fine. Teen who feels socially pressured? No. 5-year-old? No. This is not something that affects your future. This is not something that has some medical or preventive purpose.
Ear piercings may only cause minor pain and have minor infection risks and may not be a serious harm in the great scheme of things, but they set a horrible precedent for consent and bodily autonomy and I find it unconscionable that anyone can defend that unless they are just expressing how normalized it is because of the way it happened to them too. Beauty standards for women are oppressive things that even women tend to unwittingly enforce on each other, and it starts during childhood. It’s not good, it’s not healthy. It’s sick, and it’s malicious, and we need to stop perpetuating it. Let people have the bodies they are born with and accept them as they are, let them decide if or when they want to change it.
.