UN: 4.5 million girls at risk of genital mutilation in 2026
(www.dw.com)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 07 Feb 2026 12:33
https://lemmy.world/post/42805433
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 07 Feb 2026 12:33
https://lemmy.world/post/42805433
Many of the girls at risk of FGM are under the age of 5, the UN says. Around 230 million women and girls around the world are survivors of the practice.
#world
threaded - newest
How many boys will be circumcised in America alone this year?
Whataboutism.
Both are bad and should be illegal. However FGM is by far typically more brutal, invasive, unsanitary and deadly.
It’s not “whatabout” it’s “this too.” That circumcision isn’t brutal, invasive, unsanitary, and deadly just shows how fucked things get when genital mutilation is normalized
What are you suggesting? That female genial mutilation be made less brutal, less invasive, less unsanitary or less lethal?
The point is that we should ban any kind of mutilation.
Well that’s the dumbest possible interpretation anyone could have possibly had.
You’ve claimed we should ignore other forms of mutilation because “whataboutism.” I think it’s reasonable to argue that any kind of mutilation should be prohibited, instead of carving out exceptions. By that logic, my question remains: do you disagree, or should we instead just try to make female genital mutilation less bad?
Wrong, bitch.
I told that other user that they were doing a whataboutism… because they were fucking doing a whataboutism. They were effectively delegitimizing FGM because “well what about MGM???”.
Just because there’s an effort and focus on FGM doesn’t mean there is none for MGM. Yet that user was suggesting otherwise.
Its the same incel logic that states the existence of feminism and women’s empowerment takes away from and harms men. It doesn’t.
Except that isn’t what that user was saying. It wasn’t “and we should also combat MGM”. It was “OH YEAH? WELL WHAT ABOUT MGM HUH?!?! WHY ARENT YOU FOCUSING ON THAT RIGHT NOW?!?!”
No, your question is still suprememly fucking stupid and your interpretation is exceptionally moronic.
FGM and MGM should both be banned, and any suggestion that my stance was otherwise is you yourself being incredibly dense.
HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world wrote:
You seem terribly upset, but there’s no need for name-calling. Nobody is “delegitimizing” anything here except what you are making of others inputs to the discourse.
For what it’s worth, we both agree mutilation is wrong and should be prohibited, so there’s really no reason to be so angry and childish in the first place.
Here’s a bonus since you can’t seem to get simple facta through your skull.
FGM is estimated to cause around 44.3k deaths of young girls annually
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10432559/
On the other hand:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision?wprov=sfla1
Which again, goes back to my fucking point that you’re somehow too dense to understand.
The reason there’s a greater concern over FGM, is because it actually has significantly higher rates of adverse effects, including death
You have for some reason decided that I disagree with you, but I’ve not. I’ve only tried to point out the escape hatch for proponents of mutilation to argue for, and why the comment that you originally replied to is not “whataboutism.”
Bro just wants to be mad. This is Lemmy
Go get some fresh air man
Excellent advice for most of us here. It’s ironic you should write that while I was standing on Prodalp.
To put a stop to this, we need to first banish the thought that it’s okay if the child/infant is male. It’s a form of sexism and it’s honestly pretty ugly.
The dialogue should generally go that all genital mutilation of infants and children is wrong for any reason excepting bona fide medical necessity as determined by spiritually/religiously/politically neutral medical providers. And that anyone supporting infant genital mutilation, even if it’s only for one sex/gender, race, religion, whatever, should be seen as the same as someone supporting infant genital mutilation for anyone.
This also needs to apply for intersex infants. It is currently standard practice to try to surgically “correct” any infants that display intersex traits at birth, regardless if there is an actual medical necessity.
Of course, this would also require adding a third option to standard birth certificates, or removing assigned sex from the certificates, which reactionary chuds would throw a fit over.
We’ll just ignore the male genital mutilation of circumcision
Circumcision gets widely ignored, it’s still mutilation
Absolutely false.
Mods removed my former reply so I’ll just say, read or look into “desert flower”, “seven” or “stitch”. If you think circumcision is tantamount to cutting a clit off, cauterizing large sections, or sewing the vagina semi-permanently shut. This is all typically as young girls not as babies. The trauma experienced cements the way they see the world values them. CIRCUMCISION IS BAD, IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.
False equivalence.
Things done in caves in Afganistan aren’t comparable to things done in a theatre in Iran. Yet both are brutal.
One is objectively demonstrably worse. I’m not going to an anti circumcision post and saying “hey what about female genital mutilation” as is happening here. For what goal I’d add? I can’t see an objective aside from attempting to diminish the suffering being discussed. Obscuring the issue by conflating it with a completely different thing is wrong.
The objective is that when you champion pointless torture you’re for torture, you’re just thinking you stop at the right point. You’re no better than a bigot who only hates a certain nationality. As long as circumsion is legal this isn’t a moral stance, it is a cultural preference, bigotry.
I literally say that circumcision is bad but a completely different issue. You’re no better than someone screaming “men get raped too” when discussing the sexual assault cases of women. Its a separate thing completely and you trying to crowbar it into this conversation just shows you want to discredit the current topic. Shameful behavior.
I get what you are saying, but that’s not the way to do it.
“What about male genital mutilation?”“We should ban all mutilation of genitals of children. It is barbaric. Some more than others, but it’s all bad.”
If all you do is respond with essentially “what about this other thing that this particular article isn’t talking about,” it derails the conversation of the current article. Saying that all aspects of the subject if the article are bad and have no place in society says “I agree with this, and let’s extend it further.”
This is fucking barbaric.