LETTERS: Circumcision may be unwise for men: for women it is mutilation
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.WHEN are we going to stop using the misleading euphemism "circumcision" when referring to the excision of a girl's clitoris as practised in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East ("Doctor, spare that foreskin", 7 April)?
The severity of female genital mutilation (FGM) varies from community to community, but in some cultures the ritual entails not only the removal of the entire clitoris (without anaesthetic) but also the scarring and joining of the outer labia. This suture is subsequently cut open for intercourse and childbirth.
With male circumcision, damage to the penis is the exception: in the case of FGM grave physiological and psychosexual harm is, unsurprisingly, the norm. It is not just those living in "the West" who regard this practice as mutilation; the anti-FGM campaign is led by women who have themselves suffered from clitoridectomy.
Vera Lustig
Walton-on-Thames, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments