We are often asked why we use the term female genital cutting and not female genital mutilation. This blog, posted by our partner Tostan in February 2015, explains why:
FGC? FGM? Female circumcision? Why language matters in helping communities abandon harmful practices

This Friday, February 6, marks the United Nations (UN) International Day for the Abandonment of Female Genital Cutting (FGC). It’s a day to celebrate communities around the world that have decided to abandon this harmful practice, educate people about the work that still needs to be done, and engage partners globally to see millions of women and girls free from FGC.

Tostan has been deeply committed to enabling communities across West Africa to make positive social changes like abandoning FGC. We are frequently asked why we choose to use the term, “female genital cutting” instead of the more widely used, “female genital mutilation.” As we look forward to many conversations this Friday about FGC, we wanted to clarify our use of this language up front so that it doesn’t distract from the bigger picture: working together to end a harmful practice that damages millions of girls and women worldwide.

The terminology around this issue can be challenging. Three separate terms have been widely used to describe the practice: female circumcision, female genital mutilation, and female genital cutting. We avoid the term “circumcision,” as we believe it incorrectly implies a parallel between FGC and male circumcision.  But the fact is, all of these terms have their limitations and fall short of accurately describing this practice—which has four major (and infinite minor) variations in practice around the world. No one term is truly “accurate.”

But we must use words, and so among these options, Tostan has for over 13 years chosen the term female genital cutting based on what communities that are giving up the practice have told us: the term “cutting” allows them to accomplish more than the others because it is less judgmental and value-laden. As a result, the term is more effective for engaging groups in dialog around this practice, and eventually bringing about its end.

We want to be very, very clear about one thing: we do not use this term in an attempt to excuse or diminish the impact of the practice. Anyone who has taken the time to learn about Tostan and watched the testimonies given by Tostan’s local partners—Marietou Diarra, for example— knows that we are in no way hiding or excusing the real, significant consequences of this practice. Yet despite its serious health consequences, we have found that FGC itself is not done with vicious intent to “mutilate” a girl. Rather, parents who have their daughters cut want the best for them, and the practice is seen as a necessary step to enable her to be a fully accepted member of the community.

It seems counter-intuitive, but in our experience, if there is a dominant emotion involved in FGC, it is love—because not cutting your daughter risks her entire future. As explained by a former cutter-turned-Tostan advocate, Oureye Sall, in communities where FGC is practiced, an uncut girl is ostracized. Community members will not eat food cooked by a woman who is not cut, will not accept water from her, will not even sit with her. She will have difficulty getting married. An uncut woman is viewed as unclean and therefore unable to participate fully in the community.

With these social pressures, if a family chooses not to cut their daughter, they have risked severely damaging her social status. To imply that parents are actually “mutilating” their daughters through a decision made with love and concern for her well-being is unfair to them and risks alienating and offending them rather than convincing them to abandon the practice.

In addition, we have found that many communities do not fully understand the consequences of the practice—the effects of which are not always immediate or obvious, especially in cases of infections, tetanus, etc. Without an understanding of concepts such as germ theory, recognizing the true long-term health implications of FGC is difficult. When communities do get access to this information, presented in a manner that is trustworthy and non-combative, they come to understand the harm the practice causes and will decide on their own to stop—but if the person bringing these messages begins with judgmental terms, the chance of reaching this breakthrough disappears.

FGC, not FGM

i.e.
Please DO use the term; Female Genital 'Cutting',

....rather than the term; Female Genital Mutilation.



Moslems, posing as leftist 'progressives', now seek to introduce mainstream media terms which would tend to disguise the full extent of the barbarity of ISLAMIC inspired moslem violence.


e.g.
Beheading infidels.

"Pre-whole-body-transplant procedure."

Another one;

Murdering an intimate member of your family, who challenges the authority of ISLAM over their life ?

"Honour killing."

Another one;

Randonly stabbing police officers in public places.

"Educating pigs to respect moslems."

.




ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06


ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."





Google;






THE HADITH....

- DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:09am:



Ridiculous.


"Perhaps most importantly, we should be very cautious in labeling and stigmatizing the girls and women who have been cut. We do not believe it is our place to tell them that they are “mutilated.” As with other victims of violence, we believe they have the human right to self-identify in whatever manner they choose."

mothra wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 10:58am:


Muslims and their apologists like to use political correctness to downplay female genital mutilation, their moral bankruptcy has to be seen to be believed.

Why don't you call it a ritual nick or has that already been tried, at least Pru Goward toldthem to bugger off when they tried that nonsense.
abc.net.au/news/2010-05-28/doctors-consider-less-severe-female-circumcision/8447...

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:18am:



No you muppet. FGC incorporates the women who are simply cut (which can have life long problems) with the women who are ore horrendously disfigured.

It is, after all, about the women and not your outrage.

mothra wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:19am:


Did I say rape? Sorry. I meant mutilating the genitals of little girls, which is completely different. We should stop trying to prevent Muslims doing this, in case the women who are already victims feel stigmatised. We must stamp out cultural imperialism so that Muslims can continue mutilating girls for another 1400 years.

"She began by explaining why she has a problem with the term ‘female genital mutilation’.

‘I think it’s quite harsh and it’s very western-centric,’ Ms Gbla told me. ‘In Africa mostly we call it “female circumcision”, which I think goes to show more respect to the victims, while “female genital mutilation” just conjures up horrible pictures in people’s minds... It doesn’t go to support or help our mental health.’ In brief, she objects to being described repeatedly as someone who is mutilated."