The Great FGM-IGM Debate

By Sophia Siedlberg.

I recently found myself involved in a debate as to whether or not there is a comparison between FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) And IGM (Intersex Genital Mutilation). One contributor to this debate seemed to think that the two do not compare because FGM is somehow more harmful.

Perhaps mentioning the unmentionable may help clarify my position not only in the debate itself but in the wider debate. To begin with, mutilating children to fit social "norms" when seen for what it is, happens to be little more than socially sanctioned child abuse. It makes no difference how it is framed, whether it be for "religious reasons" in non-western cultures or for "socio-medical reasons" in western cultures. It is the physical mutilation of a child's genitalia being undertaken to suite social "norms" that are tied into the unreasonable reverence shown towards sex dimorphism.

It would seem that making this statement is somehow "eluding" some as of yet un-clarified significance of female genital mutilation. Apparently this disgusting practice has an additional significance which makes it more important to confront than intersex genital mutilation.

Let's say it bluntly then. Young girls deserve protection from these disgusting practices while intersex children do not deserve such protection. Because being born female confers a higher intrinsic value than being born intersexed. As an intersexed person who was mutilated myself, I tend not to tolerate such norm born prejudices. All forms of infant genital mutilation are repugnant and that is that.

Well my stating the obvious will be confronted with: "Where is your evidence?" Well, believe it or not it has been the past activities of anti FGM activists who "bothered" to get involved with opposing IGM as well who serve as the evidence.

When in the early 1990's the Intersex Society of North America was formed to confront intersex genital mutilation it became clear, for a number of reasons, that ISNA were only opposed to surgeries that were intended to re enforce a female status on the child. There were two reasons for this which are actually quite disturbing. The first which I have covered as some length involves the fear on the part of a number of surgeons that were the truth about the messy nature of masculinising surgeries to come out, and the victims of it were able to speak out, the surgeons would be facing financial ruin in the courts. The second, which until now I have avoided discussing too openly (because there are sacred cows involved) has been the "also happen to be FGM activists" in the feminist lobby who when they as good as took over ISNA decided to be very specific about which types of IGM they would fight to stop. Clitoral reduction and any other form of IGM that resembles FGM. The patriarchal medical profession and the matriarchal  "Also fight against FGM feminists" (That is representatives of male and female) had decided between themselves that there was a pecking order as to which mutilated children get access to justice later on in life. Those who were denied justice to this day suffer at the hands of people who, as good as advocate mutilation in the name of sex dimorphism.

The first attempt by intersex people to defend their right to not be mutilated as children were basically told that they can only do this on certain (Sexist) terms. and I am supposed to simply sit back and accept this? Well no, Organisation Intersex International, unlike ISNA has a clear policy of opposing all normalizing surgeries that are undertaken without consent. I am a member of OII so I am going by the policies of OII. However personally I actually find the arrogance of those FGM activists who as good as took over ISNA and said that only certain types of infant mutilation were going to be confronted, were doing what exactly? Well, how about defining who does and who does not get mutilated on the basis of "Accepted social norms". And given the patriarchal involvement in this, it become very clear what was going on. The FGM activists (Representing female self interest) and the doctors (Representing male self interest) were only moving the battle of the sexes on to the bodies of those children they can still get away with mutilating, intersex children.

Oh admitted they opposed feminizing procedures but then that proves my point, why only feminizing procedures? Because on the patriarchal side "it is better to be a boy" and the Feminist side it is "Wrong to violate woman and only woman".

So let's simply say this as it really is. The FGM activists who decided to "lower themselves" to include IGM in their agenda did more harm than good and at the same time did the very thing they claimed to be opposed to, propped up the social norms that give unreasonable reverence to sex dimorphism. Which in effect implies that their opposition to FGM is driven more by the interests of people relative to sex dimorphism (that is the interests of certain "Social norms") than the actual harm all this does to children themselves.

I am very clear about my position, as a victim of childhood genital mutilation myself,  I am opposed to all forms of infant genital mutilation and do not, will not and cannot accept any notion of a pecking order that decrees that some children are worthy of being protected from being mutilated while others are not. That is bigotry against intersex people, plain and simple.

FGM, IGM and even male circumcision (which is still a part of the culture I belong to, sadly) are all manifestations of the same revolting thing, undue reverence being given to sex dimorphism. Applying rules like "Oh well it is wrong to mutilate this child but not wrong to mutilate that child" is simply giving credence to the dimorphic dictatorship and allowing the disgusting practices of surgical child abuse to continue with impunity. This is not an issue of the self interest of one or the other sex, this is an issue of humanity recognizing a child for what it is, a child, a human being, and not a bit of meat to be moulded by the self interests of the two sexes.

Having now spoken the unspeakable can people simply agree that mutilating children is simply wrong, without prioritizing one above the other or giving one child a lower intrinsic value as compared to another?