22,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DeLaet 2009; wikify Ulwaluko
The media often only spread part of the information available. Many people e.g. aren't at all aware today that fifty years ago, if at all, people used to speak of ''circumcision'' among women and girls, too. The association of the term ''mutilation'' was accomplished through the emergence of feminism and the political work of the women's movement. Today, based on the WHO classification of the [[FGM]] methods found, it is known that there are the most varied types of [[FGM]] worldwide, ranging from slight incisions on the clitoral hood to the most brutal, actual mutilations. Affected reports such as Waris Dirie's autobiographical novel "Desert Flower" are familiar to many as the common cliché of association with [[FGM]], not least because it was made into a film.
In the media, [[MGM]] has not yet reached the society's consciousness as mutilation this much, especially in the western world. In Europe and e.g. in the USA [[MGM]] is regularly associated with "medical intervention", "operation", "sterile", "small incision", [[phimosis]], "hygienic benefits" and with "religious practice" by Jews and Muslims. Viewed worldwide, there are just as many variants of [[MGM]] as of [[FGM]], many of which would "make us vomit" just as much as the story of the "desert flower". Australian forms of [[MGM]] among the Aborigines ([[Subincision]]) or the [[MGM]] [[Ulwaluko|initiation rites in parts of Africa<ref>http://www.ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html</ref> ]] have nothing in common with our predominant association. But so far the WHO has not carried out a corresponding classification of the [[MGM]] methods found. The political work of the [[intactivists]] movement has been adjusting this inequally published information since several years and brings the various forms and effects of [[MGM]] into the consciousness of society as well.
All this does not mean that a competition between [[FGM]] and [[MGM]] is permissible in the circumcision debate. The depth of intervention is no valid argument when it comes to the medically not necessary [[circumcision]] of children. Everyone has certain inalienable rights from birth onwards. These also include the right to physical integrity. This right can be interfered with on the basis of medical necessities by e.g. vaccinate or perform a necessary operation that either saves the child's life or significantly improves the quality of life.
Medically not indicated, irreversible body modifications in a child are not covered by [[parental rights]], but can only be decided of the children who in adulthood can do whatever they want with their body.
Debra DeLaet (2009) has researched the different approaches of the international community for framing male and female circumcision as a [[human rights]] issue.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=DeLaet
|first=Debra L.
|init=DL
|url=https://www.academia.edu/30794845/
|title=Framing Male Circumcision as a Human Rights Issue? Contributions to the Debate Over the Universality of Human Rights
|date=2009
|journal=J Human Rights
|volume=8
|pages=405-26
|DOI=10.1080/14754830903324795
|accessdate=2022-10-14
}}</ref>
{{SEEALSO}}