The sub-heading reads:
Paediatricians have erred by suggesting that 'nicking' female genitalia should be allowed as a cultural compromise.W...T...F....F?!?
At the end of last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a revised policy statement on female genital mutilation (FGM) called "ritual genital cutting of female minors," suggesting that the federal and state law in the US should permit paediatricians to offer a ritual "nick" of girls' genitalia as a compromise to appease the cultural needs of their immigrant clients.Ahhh, appeasement. The progressives' favourite word...
International women's rights organisations from the US, Africa, and Europe were quick to respond to this outrageous proposition calling on the AAP to retract its 2010 statement and revert back to its much stronger 1998 statement on the subject.That's showing admirable restraint, I feel. I'd have been calling for a rusty, dull razor, some twine and some dirty, scummy water....
The AAP's response, however, has thus far been underwhelming and they continue to justify this latest position on three grounds:In other words 'Omg! Omg! We can't upset teh minorities! I can haz fudge, plse?'
- "Nicking" is a minor procedure equivalent to a pin prick or ear piercing and has no harmful health consequences.
- Offering the "nick" demonstrates cultural sensitivity in serving immigrant populations.
- The "nick" is a "compromise" that could prevent families from performing more severe forms of FGM on their daughters
A 2008 statement on FGM adopted by 10 prominent UN agencies clearly states that, "the guiding principles for considering genital practices as FGM should be those of human rights, including the right to health, the rights of children and the right to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex."You'd think that would suffice for all but the most barkingly-insane trendy lefty, but no.
How come these people can pass doctor's exams anyway? Is that old 'First, do no harm...' bit now translated as 'First, kowtow to the primitive belief systems of your non-white clients...' or something?
According to a member of the AAP's bioethics committee, the intention behind the revised 2010 policy is to issue a "statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context".Well, you can shove that as far up your normally-sized and un-mutilated fanny as far as you can get it, chum!
The new policy justifies the shift from the 1998 terminology of "female genital mutilation" to "female genital cutting (FGC) or ritual genital cutting, by claiming that the former is "culturally insensitive language".*grinds teeth*
Dear god, these people need a brisk slapping to shake them out of their ivory towers and bring them down to the reality of just what those initials stand for. I'd link to some of the videos out there, but they are truly, utterly stomach turning and some of you may be reading this at brakfast...
It further validates paediatricians' offer to "nick" girls genitalia to "satisfy cultural requirements". This raises the question of what culture is being talked about and who are the gatekeepers of this culture that are being appeased – and what is the so-called "cultural identity" being preserved.Quite.
The AAP must retract its statement.The AAP needs to be held down by some tribal elders and have that statement forcibly retracted for them....