GA Resolution: On Female Genital Mutilation

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

On Female Genital Mutilation
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Quelesh


Description: The Assembled Nations of the World,

APPALLED at the dehumanizing practice of mutilating the genitals of girls and young women without medical necessity;

DEFINING Female Genital Mutilation, or FGM, as any of the following, separately or together, when done to an individual without that individual's fully informed uncoerced consent and when not medically necessary:

A. The removal, in whole or in part, of the clitoris, clitoral hood, labia minora or labia majora,

B. Any deformation or alteration of the vulva for the purpose of closing or reducing the size of the girl thingyl opening, or

C. Any other alteration of the female genitals for the purpose, or that has the effect, of reducing or modifying sexual function, desire, arousal or pleasure;

CLARIFYING that for a procedure to be "medically necessary" per the above definition it must be, in the opinion of a medical doctor, needed in order to prevent death or permanent physical harm to an individual, and must be the least invasive procedure that will prevent death or permanent physical harm;

ACKNOWLEDGING that FGM is a longstanding cultural tradition in some parts of the world;

however, ASSERTING that cultural or religious identity or tradition is wholly inadequate justification for the barbaric mutilation of an individual's sexual organs without that individual's fully informed consent;

BEMOANING the loss of sexual function and sexual pleasure that the victims of FGM experience as a result of these procedures;

CONCERNED about the medical complications that can result from these unnecessary and unsafe procedures, including infections of various kinds, infertility, scarring, complications during childbirth or even death;

DEDICATED to the fundamental human rights of girls and women and to the bodily integrity and sovereignty to which every individual is entitled;

hereby PROHIBIT the practice of Female Genital Mutilation in all member states;

REQUIRE member states to treat the infliction of FGM upon an individual, or causing FGM to be inflicted upon an individual under one's authority or control, as a criminal act, with penalties appropriate for the barbarism of the act;

INSIST that member states likewise criminalize the act of traveling outside the nation for the purpose of inflicting FGM or having FGM inflicted upon an individual;

MANDATE that member states with populations that have a history or tradition of FGM engage in a campaign to educate their populations about the negative effects of FGM and the right of all citizens to be free from FGM;

STRONGLY URGE member states to encourage, via diplomatic pressure or other legal, peaceful means, non-member states to prohibit FGM and populations of non-member states to abandon the practice;

CLARIFY that this resolution does nothing to prohibit the voluntary alteration of the genitals when the individual undergoing the procedure fully understands the potential consequences and grants informed uncoerced consent to the procedure; and

FURTHER CLARIFY that legally sanctioned parental authority, any legal right that parents or guardians may have to consent to medical procedures on behalf of an individual or any legal rights that any person or entity may have when acting in loco parentis in regards to an individual are not sufficient justification for inflicting FGM and that only the fully informed uncoerced consent of the individual herself is sufficient justification for allowing such procedures.

[Takaram]

Aye to the tenth degree.

[Magthere]

Support

[Anime Daisuki]

B. Any deformation or alteration of the vulva for the purpose of closing or reducing the size of the girl thingyl opening, or

girl thingyl opening?

[Wordy]

hahahahaha
I love the filter

[Quelesh]

As the author of this proposal, I heartily encourage everyone to vote FOR.

I'm sure most of you recognize that female genital mutilation is cruel and barbaric, and that the WA has a duty to protect girls from it, but for those who may be on the fence, here is my basic advocacy:

Most FGM procedures are for the most part quite irreversible, especially those that involve removing portions of the anatomy. They cause permanent physical harm. Many procedures, especially those involving clitoridectomies, leave girls completely unable to orgasm, or otherwise with greatly reduced capacity for sexual pleasure, and some procedures are designed to close off the (word filter censored) opening such that sexual intercourse is either impossible or extremely painful. This also results in the need for Ceasarean sections during childbirth, or complications during childbirth including fetal death.

FGM also often causes great mental trauma. For more information, I suggest reading what organizations such as UNICEF have to say: www.unicef.org/protection/index_genitalmutilation.html

Those who advocate for FGM often hide behind the veneer of cultural or religious tradition, while the real reason is often to reduce or eliminate girls' capacity for sexual pleasure. Every person has the right to bodily integrity, and FGM procedures are among the most intimately cruel violations of that integrity.

Please vote FOR.

Sept 27, 2010 0:27:56 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

B. Any deformation or alteration of the vulva for the purpose of closing or reducing the size of the girl thingyl opening, or

girl thingyl opening?

LOL. Apparently that six-letter word that starts with V is word filtered to girl thingy.

Edit: Also, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the proposal.

[Wordy]

I voted for.

[Guy]

I urge everyone to vote aye on this resolution. Need I explain why?

[Unibot]

Sept 27, 2010 4:57:38 GMT -5 Guy said:

I urge everyone to vote aye on this resolution. Need I explain why?

Personally I'm waiting for someone to scream "National Sovereignty" in regards to this proposal's encroachment into our honey potl sovereignty.

[Kanaia]

FOR

But playing devils advocate: Why does this only target female genital mutation, when male genital mutation(circumcision) is much more common, and still found in western countries.

[Walabamba]

National Sovereignty!!!

[Unibot]

Sept 27, 2010 9:09:23 GMT -5 Kanaia said:

FOR

But playing devils advocate: Why does this only target female genital mutation, when male genital mutation(circumcision) is much more common, and still found in western countries.

This has cropped up quite often in debate on the official forums. The simple answer is.. circumcision has few of the dangers that exist for FGM and in fact, some medical benefits depending on which healthcare professional you ask. FGM really is much much more dangerous and has no advantageous medical benefit. Also I also am in favor of egalitarian regulation, there are obvious biological differences between men and female that need to be respected. The key argument in this resolution is that FGM is very dangerous, so no one but the victim should be able to consent it -- that argument doesn't exist for circumcision. If the key argument was to protect children's rights, your argument would have more weight.

[Quelesh]

Sept 27, 2010 9:09:23 GMT -5 Kanaia said:

FOR

But playing devils advocate: Why does this only target female genital mutation, when male genital mutation(circumcision) is much more common, and still found in western countries.

My answer to this is basically the same as Unibot's.

I actually am against male circumcision when done to people who do not grant informed consent to it. There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to be circumcised, just as there are legitimate reasons why someone would not want to be circumcised, and I think that people should be able to make that decision for themselves, instead of having the decision permanently and irreversibly made for them when they're infants.

However, male circumcision is not even close to the level of FGM in terms of barbarity and the drastic impact it has on people's lives; FGM is much more vital an issue. Also, Canadai submitted multiple proposals banning male circumcision and they were very poorly received.

[Cerb]

For.

Snipping off a foreskin is a lot different to removing the clitoris. You'd need to snip the entire glans off to be comparible.

[Kanaia]

Again playing devils advocate: I understand the argument for banning most FGM but:
The resolution also states "A. The removal, in whole or in part, of the clitoris, clitoral hood, labia minora or labia majora,"

The clitoral hood is the female analogue to the foreskin. So this is very similar to male circumcision, relatively few nerve endings, little sensory loss. How can we say one is ok and one is not?



Just for the record; I firmly believe parents should be allowed to circumcise their male children. The health benefits are relativity high in comparison to the the negatives. I just wanted to make sure people here think it through before they voted.

Didn't notice the discussion on the NS forums until it was pointed out. Glad to see it was thoroughly discussed.

[Quelesh]

Sept 27, 2010 23:38:55 GMT -5 Kanaia said:

Again playing devils advocate: I understand the argument for banning most FGM but:
The resolution also states "A. The removal, in whole or in part, of the clitoris, clitoral hood, labia minora or labia majora,"

The clitoral hood is the female analogue to the foreskin. So this is very similar to male circumcision, relatively few nerve endings, little sensory loss. How can we say one is ok and one is not?

First, I'm not actually saying with my proposal that removing the male foreskin is okay but removing the clitoral hood is not. I'm simply not addressing male circumcision with my proposal.

But I included the clitoral hood because it's one of the parts of the anatomy that are frequently removed as part of FGM. I wanted to make sure all the bases were covered, and there really isn't a reason to not prohibit it, as the arguments generally espoused in favor of male circumcision don't apply.

There are actual health benefits (though some of them are disputed) to male circumcision, which is in my opinion the major argument against banning it. I'm not aware of any (even alleged) health benefits to removing the clitoral hood.

My arguments about loss of sexual pleasure or function may not apply in the case of the removal only of the clitoral hood, but the argument about potential complications (e.g. infections) could still apply, and the children's rights argument definitely still applies. If someone wants to remove her clitoral hood, she can always choose to do so when she's able to fully understand and consent to it, and there are no health benefits to doing it in infancy.

[ImperialPoland]

*cough*

....yeah, if the ladies are cool with it, then i guess, so am i?

[Walabamba]

I'm going to go with that exact statement Poland

[-Valoniah-]

What a topic. I'm gonna vote for.

[racrova]

What an outrageous custom! No one is hurt in such a cruel way in our culture.

On the other hand, there are religions that cut baby boys' foreskins. And religions that slaughter pigs for food. Both practices are hard to grasp for us Racrovans. But we respect other nations' religions.

But we must not overlook the following words in the proposal:

when done to an individual without that individual's fully informed uncoerced consent and when not medically necessary

In the light of those words, the whole government of Racrova is FOR the proposal. No woman (or girl!) can be forced to suffer in this way against her will, even for religious purposes.

[Echolilia]

"On Female Genital Mutilation" was passed 5,009 votes to 665.

[Quelesh]

Thank you everyone who supported it!

[Afforess]

Sept 27, 2010 8:44:32 GMT -5 Unibot said:

Sept 27, 2010 4:57:38 GMT -5 Guy said:

I urge everyone to vote aye on this resolution. Need I explain why?

Personally I'm waiting for someone to scream "National Sovereignty" in regards to this proposal's encroachment into our girl thingyl sovereignty.

I'll take the bait. I'm not sure I approve of the WA getting into this kind of minutiae. I'm not for mutilation, and think people should have basic rights, but so do nations. And the freedom from excessive laws is one of them. What's next, laws blocking people from calling each other mean names?