Should we talk about sexual mutilation or genital mutilation?

[Droit au Corps Association]

See Droit au Corps' point of view here: Sexual mutilation with this conclusion 

"the term “sexual” is preferable to the term “genital”, which is restricted to the organs necessary for reproduction. For example, the clitoris is not strictly speaking part of the “genital” organs even though it plays a “sexual” role."

[Simon ten Kate]

I have seen the term sexual mutilation for the first time in DAC's writings and was surprised but totally understand it now and support using it. I use it in Intact Nederland's messages too now. 

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

It should be noted that by using the term "sexual" it is much easier to establish alliances with organisations that fight against all forms of "sexual violence", especially committed against children. Such organisations could very well collaborate with ICASM or one day be part of it, it is probably in our interest to be the most effective political front.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Someone responded to my post (It should be noted that by using the term "sexual" it is much easier to establish alliances with organisations that fight against all forms of "sexual violence"[...]" 

"That could be, or could not be. I suggest using experience rather than hope or theory. I have been working in child protection networks for years and cannot confirm that such terminology generally leads to greater acceptance."

My understanding  yet is:

- There seems to be a difference in habit between English-speaking (genital) and French-speaking (sexual) countries. For example, GAMS-Belgium asks itself the question of using "sexual" in all its communication, but its site continues to speak of "genital" in the English version.

- It should be noted that, strictly speaking, the organs concerned are sometimes "sexual" and not "genital" (such as the clitoris). However, the original anthropological intent of these traditions is "reproduction" rather than "sexuality".

- If the coalition decides to opt for "genital" in the English language, the name ICASM should be changed to ICAGM, unless in the future we can do without it altogether if we choose another name that no longer refers to "mutilation", which would completely solve the problem.

- On the other hand, it would have to be decided whether Article 2 of the Statutes still refers to "sexual" or "genital" organs.

> AIM - The ICASM’s aim is to bring an end to any modification of a sexual organ carried out on an individual without their free and informed consent, and without medical necessity.

[Michael Winnel]

08-08-20 Victor Schering/MOGiS - Terminology and name of the ICASM:

The term “genital mutilation” has already been mentioned as very confrontational. The term "sexual mutilation" is even more so.

I ask you to keep in mind that we are dealing with 100% directly affected people in the Muslim world. These are people who have a very specific connection to the topic.

Seeing one's genitalia as mutilated can already create the feeling of being attacked. But if the whole sexuality as such is called mutilated, destroyed, it is even stronger.

The door is closed immediately then - before we have explained anything.

In my work for MOGiS I come together with Muslim youth groups. Some of them are very open to the topic. They want to know facts. It's often the first time ever they experience a situation in which they can speak over the topic at all. Often they admit they don't have pleasant memories. Still, the step further to consider themselves as vulnerable is an incredibly big one. There is no such thing as male vulnerability in this culture and not only in theirs - at least that is my experience.

This is why I believe that we will be successful if we focus on the child. Every man must have the possibility of not having to question his own story, his condition and his sexuality - and in the same time allow an empathic approach to the child.

The word “sexual” leads away from the child. It is an adult word. That's why it's wrong here or better let me say: in my eyes it’s not helping our cause. Not on an argumentative level, of course not, I can follow all intellectual arguments here. 

Our first criteria should always be: efficiency. 

We reach people when we appeal to their feelings. 

For this, the child must always be in focus:

1) That we want to reduce the suffering of defenseless and weak people.

2) That the answer to the child's trust must be protection.

3) That we all have a common interest in living peacefully and without violence.

4 )That solidarity with the weak is a basic moral value of living together.

5) That every boy that is being done MGM to now can be a man suffering from it later in life as many e.g. in ICASM do. 

6) That no parents ever in the future can justify MGM to their sons by saying they couldn’t know the facts and risks.

...

I am in favor of a less powerful word, which nevertheless remains clear and doesn't camouflage. There is one word in German: reduction. "Less". This shows that something was taken. There is less than nature intended. But it leaves room to develop an attitude beyond mutilation and destroyed sexuality. This is very important!

I advocate a term like “forced reduction of parts of the genitals, so called circumcision, genital cutting” or simply “genital cutting”.

Of course I know: We won’t find a perfect word. 

Let’s try to find the most useful to our cause :-) 

Useful means: 

Not forcibly make adults feel the same way about their own altered genitals as we probably do. 

This can be a consequence, yes. But it is not our issue what people feel about their genitals. 

But it’s our issue what is done to children.

So our goal is: invite adults to be empathic to their children. That’s the key. And we should have in mind: the most useful words and arguments are not always the most comfortable for us. It can even be very uncomfortable! 

For being successful on a political level we need to distinguish strongly between safe places for our feelings (and e.g. feeling comfortable) and open spaces for the public debate. 

[Michael Winnel]

MW 08-08-2020: Victor, thanks for your very thoughtful sharings on “sexual” vs “genital”. Regarding the word “mutilation”, you mention using “cutting” instead - how strong is your preference around this word? Are you simply saying your strong preference is for the term “Genital Cutting” to be used instead of “sexual mutilation”, or even “genital mutilation”?