Thought MaryYugo would post this one.

Maryyugo doesnt have time to post here since becoming a journalist for breitbart

US firs? Like Douglas firs?

No, it means she was wearing a fur coat at the time.

This is fucking awful. Contributing to the awfulness is that so many of those girls' mothers sought this out because of tradition. What's also bad is that male genital mutilation i.e. circumcision, is perfectly okay...because tradition and aesthetics*...and a belated but concerted effort to justify it medically.

*The number of mothers I've talked to who had their boys circumcised "because it looks better" would astound you.

Yes...that's what seems to be said to defend both practices...the women who support FGM seem to be fairly unanimous that it makes them happier and hence healthier.

Also, please take your ad personam attacks to fora where it's part of the culture and actually appreciated. I'd love to see you shine in an appropriate environment.

You're welcome.

Numbers is too afraid to play with the big boys Bob.

Incidentally, the american academy of pediatrics was briefly fine with FGM, suggesting a small nick instead of removing the clitoral hood. They have since retracted this stance. Although, the fact that they okayed a form of it for any period of time does say a lot.

Now that we cleared that up Numbers, feel free to return to sodomizing yourself in secret, stopping only to produce pathetically weak attempts at trolling.

When you're ready to man the fuck up, you know where to find me

Do you have a citation. I would like to see their reasoning.

sure thing. here it is in its original form. pertinent paragraph is on the 5th page, top right most group of words.

strangely enough, i'm okay with their proposal. I think it should be more in the form of a piercing maybe, since this is currently socially acceptable.

Thanks. My main concern was if that they did not address that it might be better to have a tiny symbolic procedure preformed by a doctor than have infibulation performed by a grandmother with a rusty razor and a sewing kit. Since they did, I am curious now as to why they retracted it. While the procedure is always wrong ( like male circumcision) I am now curious as to how they justified stopping as it was still a form of harm reduction.

public outcry, also known as the bleating of sheep

also bear in mind this was 7 years ago.

I appreciate it. I have always found this a fascinating subject since it encapsulates so many of issues. ( how to deal with foreign custom, how to deal with things that will be done in secret that may be worse than if you let them be done openly, how to deal with the oppression of women by other women for for the sake a patriarchal society. how to deal with "well intended" child abuse, religion and child rearing, and how they get around banning this while still allowing male circumcision. etc. )

. . . and how they get around banning this while still allowing male circumcision.. You don't. It's a contradiction, double standard, and engages in moral relativism to justify barbarity. Both employ the exact same tactics of NO informed consent and indoctrination of the helpless into a religious/ societal cult. Both should be banned and prison should be the penalty for performing either on anyone under the age of 18, if caught. If you are an adult of consenting age, knock yourself out. Also, the same way we try and educate society about the evils of intolerance, bigotry, and FGM, so should the lies of circumcision be exposed. That way the idiocy of numbers' comment above won't permeate civil, modern society.

While I would like to agree unreservedly, I'm afraid a complete ban on male circumcision would be a de facto ban on Jews and Muslims. They would have to decide between following the law or giving up their faith. I don't really want to see us imprisoning Jews because they refuse to give up their religion and continue to practice it in secret.

It’s not a de facto ban on a religion. It would be a ban on a barbarous religious/ cultural ritual. Jews and Muslims can abide 99.9% of their beliefs and continue to practice their religion as they please. If they want to cut their babies dicks, go to a country that allows it. Everything else is fair and tolerated, even if it’s stupid. Circumcision, like FGM, should be viewed as antiquated, inhumane, barbaric, and abusive.

Special rules for a very small segment of society alienates the rest. A slippery slope indeed, when we strive for equality under the law. How do we determine which barbarous rituals are permitted? We are supposed to be living in a society with a secular government, not governed by the rules of a fantasy book. Muslims make up 1% of the U.S. population, Jews 2%. “Rules” should apply to everybody, not just 98% of the population. Unfortunately, banning it would be perceived as intolerance, yet scores of other things like scarification of minors, domestic abuse, cruel and tortuous acts against animals, polygamy, and the consumption of canines are all banned. Most of which fall under religious and cultural ritual and/or tradition. I understand there is “interpretation” of the law, but these examples fall outside normal boundaries of tolerance, with the exception of one because it has re-defined as ‘harmless.’ If total religious tolerance were allowed, we would be permitted multiple wives and treat our offspring as property, to be used as we please. And I’m not getting into the discussion of the severity of the procedure as I agree with your statement : As long as something rises to the level of persecution [or indoctrination], as any forced conversion would, any additional severity is irrelevant.

We have been culturally conditioned to accept these special cases in a judeo christian civilization and ignore others, despite the double standard. The catholic church, as far as I know, does not require circumcision, although it was debated thousands of years ago after the death of Christ. If you believe in the bible as an accurate document of history, anyway.

I posit that allowing the barbarity is more harmful than the act itself. I may have been extreme and hyperbolic in my suggestion that those performing circumcision or FGM should be imprisoned, but perpetuating barbarity in the name of religion/ culture is self serving, biased, dishonest, and creates conflict in a society that espouses justice (and morality) for all, not one with exceptions because of “tolerance of a specific religion.”

Girls that are 8 years old have to suffer not only the torment and pain of the act itself, but the torture and pain they are subjected to before and after the fact - in that they were forcibly mutilated and are bearing the brunt of sexism and misogyny. If 6 to 8 year boys were forced to endure the pain of circumcision without anesthetic, or forcibly held down, I wonder what society’s reaction would be then.

Having typed all that, I’m not sure I know what the solution is other than education, but even that is infected with bias. As is evident that some still think it’s hygienic and serves a purpose other than ritual and indoctrination of the helpless without consent.

Anyway, sorry for all that. . .

I agree that it should be banned. My reservations deal with how. I just don't know how to go about it without undesirable effects as a ban will not stop observant Jews or Muslims from doing it. Should we, for example, punish Jews who take their children abroad to have the procedure performed? Should a doctor be forced to report circumcisions he discovers to child services? Fancifully, will there be circumcision ships out beyond the territorial water limit as there are abortion ships?

We do carve out special rules for small populations as in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Since I am actually on your side, I would not like to see us do this in this case. I just think it is a more complex issue than simply saying stop.

Oh and do note that they retracted this in less than a month.

My understanding is that the traditional procedure is a clitoridectomy—the removal of the clitoral nub entirely.

True emale circumcision is essentially the same as male circumcision where the hood (functionally equivalent to the foreskin) is removed. The latter procedure is sought out by some women because it presents the clitoris for direct stimulation during sex. There was a case some time back, with a doctor who performed this procedure on women (without their permission) while they were under general anaesthetic.

In some places mostly in africa, they perform the type called infibulation. It is basically the removal of the entirety of the external genitalia, usually scraped off with a peice of broken glass or an old razor, and sew them shut leaving only a tiny hole for blood and urine. It provides a clear virginity test since when they are married the husband must unsew them. They male equivalent would be more like cutting the glans off completely.

I represented a woman who suffered it in asylum hearings we had to take several brakes because everyone was weeping and the translator couldn't go on. (I'm teary just thinking about it.) When she said she was afraid it would happen to her daughter if they were forced to leave the Judge turned off the tape and asked the attorney for the INS if they would appeal if she granted it. The INS attorney just shook her head. The Judge turned the tape back on said, Asylum granted service waives appeal and almost ran from the room.

I know it's your job but "Bravo!" Here I would (and do) say, "Thank you for your service."

I have to give most of the credit to my ex wife. She wrote an important ( as in often cited since it was one of the early ones) law journal article on the issue. Hence I was knowledgeable and highly motivated. But, thank you.

"I represented a woman who suffered it in asylum hearings we had to take several brakes because everyone was weeping and the translator couldn't go on. (I'm teary just thinking about it.) When she said she was afraid it would happen to her daughter if they were forced to leave ."

I'm wondering if you, or your wife, ever encountered similar testimony from a circumcised man, regarding his concerns for his son.

Ever.

In the literature.

Anything?

Yes. I represented a Coptic christian who faced persecution in Egypt and part of his claim was fear that son would be circumcised as part of a forced religious conversion. The judge cited that as part of his well founded fear of future persecution, though there were many other factors as well and the decision did not rest only upon that. There is no question that forced male circumcision would support a claim just as female does. It is just much rarer that it is forced other than by the parents and those places where it is, it is almost always part of a forced conversion and acts as part of the basis for the fear in a religious based claim rather than the entirety of the claim in gender based claim.

Let me get this straight.

You represented a circumcised man who argued that the process was so traumatic for him that it was imperative that his son be spared the same fate?

Is there any public record of this case?

I suspect an argument of this sort, put in front of a court where the majority of the men were themselves circumcised, would not have required all those weeping breaks.

As a side note, is there any evidence of crazed Egyptians running around abducting Copt boys and forcibly circumcising them?

I’m wondering if there is anything to support this fanciful anecdote.

Because as currently recounted it strains credulity.

I'm not surprised as your ignorance is almost beyond belief itself.
I did not say that he claimed it was traumatic for him or in fact that he was ever circumcised. Circumcision, as you apparently don't know, it not part of the christian faith.

If you reread the entry, you will notice that the "weeping breaks" did not take place in this hearing. They took place in the hearing of a woman who suffered infibulation.

No one stated that crazed Egyptians where running around abducting copt boys and forcibly circumcising them. However, if you read the country condition reports, freely available at the US state department web site and check out the resources available via the UNHCR, you will see that forced conversions were, and remain, common there. Depending on the flavor of Islam adapted by those forcing the conversion, circumcision goes along with it ( opinions range from obligatory to recommended.)

Granted that male circumcision is not as sever as infibulation, it does not have to be if it is the basis of a claim fearing future persecution. As long as something rises to the level of persecution, as any forced conversion would, any additional severity is irrelevant. (A claim of past persecution, as you falsely tried to make this seem, does depend on severity as simple past persecution will not support a claim for asylum if country conditions have change while sever past persecution will allow asylum even if they have ( if you are curious that is 8 cfr 208.13 (b)(1))

Finally, I pointed out that this was a factor in the judge's decision, but not the definitive factor.
Given that you have twisted the things I said and conflated two cases in to one to create your own narrative, I don't think you will have any interest in actually pursuing the matter.

Immigration hearings are the trial court level, if they are not appealed, no record is kept except of the ruling. This case was not appealed.

If you want to find similar cases, I suggest you check out the Board of Immigration Appeals on lexis or westlaw.

What’s most remarkable is your claim to some sort of quasi-legal training, which either didn’t stick, or more likely, is another fiction. Some limited ability to follow a simple line of reasoning is generally considered a core competency in that field, even in the swamps of immigration law.

As is evident above, you lost the tread entirely here. Anyone reading the discussion will have a hard time missing that fact, however, I’m including the Cliff’s Notes below, just for farts and giggles:

At 8:42pm GMT on 15th Apr you wrote about the trauma of a victim of FGM and her fear that her daughter would suffer the same fate.

Then, at @ 12:51am GMT, I asked a simple question,
“Did you, or your wife, ever encounter similar testimony from a circumcised man, regarding his concerns for his son.”

To which you responded at @ 1:45am GMT on 16th Apr.
“Yes”.

To which I wrote, at 9:19am GMT – Bullshit (or words to that effect).

To which you wrote,at10:38am GMT on 16th Apr. ”I did not say that he claimed it was traumatic for him or in fact that he was ever circumcised.”

I'm not sure what to make of this, other than it's a total waste of my time.

Have a weekend.

“Circumcision, as you apparently don't know, it not part of the Christian faith.”

You’re right.

I didn’t know that.

Here’s why:

“Religious male circumcision generally occurs shortly after birth, during childhood or around puberty as part of a rite of passage.
Circumcision is most prevalent in the religions of Judaism, Islam, Coptic Christianity, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.”

I’m curious.

How can someone who purports to have represented someone of the Coptic faith in a forum where the nature of Coptic religious beliefs and traditions were material know so little about the faith in question?

How could such a person believe the Copts eschew circumcision, when the polar opposite is true, and when circumcision was a stated part of the inquiry?

How could that person, then walk away from the case, still under the misapprehension that “circumcision it not part of the Christian faith”?

The answer, of course, it that you had nothing to do with such a case.

But Doctor Bob's real impressed.

Me? Not so much.

In any event, Happy Easter (which, as you are no doubt aware, is the day that Christians celebrate the sacred surfing elf, Maui Wowie.)

Hang ten everybody!

You are confusing customary and compulsory, which is the heart of the issue. I'm not surprised it goes over your head.

The contention that, “circumcision is not part of the Christian faith” Is flatly contradicted by the encyclopedia.
Anybody who had any knowledge of the Copts would never have claimed anything so risible.
You made up this story.
You got caught.

From the Coptic bible ( Galatians 5)
Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

But believe what you want.

Encyclopedias beat scriptural cherry picking. Good thing too.

BTW – How are you doing with that imaginary client of yours (who may or may not have been circumcised) who was afraid his little boy would be “forcibly circumcised”.

Any evidence to support that preposterous part of your post?

None.

Bummer.

If only you had been the judge.

the AAP also once suggested a modified version of FGM was suitable instead of clitoral hood removal.

They revised their stance only after public outcry. So your attempt to cite them as a credible reference for this topic is kinda in limbo.
y
kindly return to fucking yourself. welcome nfo la~

These communities are going to have to find a replacement for Little Bo Peep, because the demand for mutilating little girls in the United States is more than doubling every decade, more so in places like this one, where the followers of Mohammad (PBUH) are ardent fans. Even if we get lucky, which we won't, and jail all the cockroaches who provide the service locally, that's not going to save these girls. Mom and Dad will just send their precious darlings off to a proper Islamic country, and get the offending bits cut out there. Which is what they are doing now, frequently enough they have a cute little name for it: “Vacation Cutting”.

Apparently multiculturalism isn’t all folk dancing and spicy food.

Who would have guessed?

.

It would seem there are other “doctors” in the same “community” also mutilating and torturing little girls.

Officially nothing to do with Islam.