Exclusive: health professionals, survivors and politicians voice concerns in open letter over comments by Fatima Maada Bio, who denies supporting the practice
Both are born out of ancient ideals of purity and control over sexuality (the latter being especially applicable to FGM).
Male circumcision started because ancient humans viewed the human body as a canvas for social engineering. It survived and flourished because it successfully forged fierce tribal loyalty, distinct cultural boundaries, and deep religious identity. It was later justified as a way to curb masturbation.
FGM, in ancient stratified societies, including Egypt and Rome, became a prerequisite for marriage. It signified a woman’s obedience, purity, and readiness to join a household. In several cultures, an uncut woman was deemed “unclean” and socially ostracized, making her unmarriageable.
The foundational justification in almost all practicing cultures was to reduce a woman’s libido. By removing sensitive tissue, societies sought to ensure a girl remained a virgin until marriage and faithful to her husband afterward.
Both practices are a type of mutilation in my opinion but one is not referred to that way due to cultural relativism. I’m glad to come from a part of the world where neither is or ever was the norm.
I know the reasons for both. And for both they are either based in cruelty or bullshit. The origin doesn’t matter. What matters is what we do now, and what cruelty we allow to continue.
Knowing how / why is meaningful context in my opinion, simply to make it apparent how archaic the foundation really is. Especially when there are people in 2026 arguing in favor of such practices.
I disagree. The reasons behind cruelty are irrelevant. If it is cruel, that is all that matters. If people try to justify their cruelty, then I can write them off as people worth engaging with.
I’m tired of trying to make sense of the justifications of cruelty and hatred. The reasoning doesn’t matter, the result does.
To each their own. I’m fascinated by how societies may normalize and justify such practices over time but I am a student of history. The why often helps to eliminate the regressive practice in a sustainable way.
I understand wanting to know from am academic perspective, but I no longer believe that it matters for eliminating regressive policies and practices.
The holocaust is one of the most studied tragedies in history. That understanding has done nothing to eliminate genocide.
The Jim Crow laws have been studied and the motivations behind them are well known. Yet those same motivations and strategies are still being used to divide the US.
People largely don’t care. A huge portion of the population doesn’t care about an issue until they are personally impacted.
Both are born out of ancient ideals of purity and control over sexuality (the latter being especially applicable to FGM).
Male circumcision started because ancient humans viewed the human body as a canvas for social engineering. It survived and flourished because it successfully forged fierce tribal loyalty, distinct cultural boundaries, and deep religious identity. It was later justified as a way to curb masturbation.
FGM, in ancient stratified societies, including Egypt and Rome, became a prerequisite for marriage. It signified a woman’s obedience, purity, and readiness to join a household. In several cultures, an uncut woman was deemed “unclean” and socially ostracized, making her unmarriageable.
The foundational justification in almost all practicing cultures was to reduce a woman’s libido. By removing sensitive tissue, societies sought to ensure a girl remained a virgin until marriage and faithful to her husband afterward.
Both practices are a type of mutilation in my opinion but one is not referred to that way due to cultural relativism. I’m glad to come from a part of the world where neither is or ever was the norm.
I know the reasons for both. And for both they are either based in cruelty or bullshit. The origin doesn’t matter. What matters is what we do now, and what cruelty we allow to continue.
Knowing how / why is meaningful context in my opinion, simply to make it apparent how archaic the foundation really is. Especially when there are people in 2026 arguing in favor of such practices.
I disagree. The reasons behind cruelty are irrelevant. If it is cruel, that is all that matters. If people try to justify their cruelty, then I can write them off as people worth engaging with.
I’m tired of trying to make sense of the justifications of cruelty and hatred. The reasoning doesn’t matter, the result does.
To each their own. I’m fascinated by how societies may normalize and justify such practices over time but I am a student of history. The why often helps to eliminate the regressive practice in a sustainable way.
I understand wanting to know from am academic perspective, but I no longer believe that it matters for eliminating regressive policies and practices.
The holocaust is one of the most studied tragedies in history. That understanding has done nothing to eliminate genocide.
The Jim Crow laws have been studied and the motivations behind them are well known. Yet those same motivations and strategies are still being used to divide the US.
People largely don’t care. A huge portion of the population doesn’t care about an issue until they are personally impacted.