A reminder - Most FGM is less severe than most circumcisions according to the AAP

[admin]

In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a position paper in support of allowing their members to perform a version of FGM less drastic than male circumcision. In fact most the most comon form of FGM affects the hood only, so it is precisely homologous to male circumcision.

See: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-92871624.html

FGM was illegal at the time. Human rights activists mocked and shamed the AAP and they retracted the statement within a month. See the PDF of the retroactively REVISED 8-page AAP statement: https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...-0187.full.pdf

But the original memo included:
“It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm”
I can't find the full original memo now. Until I do, see: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/h...cy/07cuts.html

[z726]

Circumstitions.com has an archive of their past news items concerning topics relevant to intactivism (both male and female). I found a link while searching through their archive in April 2010 - is this it?

https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...ent/125/5/1088

As Georganne Chapin is quoted in the NYT article, allowing such abuse would have been a slippery slope. It's bad enough that male genital cutting became normalized to most people in this country, and undoing this mistake will likely still take a few more decades.

[admin]

Circumstitions.com has an archive of their past news items concerning topics relevant to intactivism (both male and female). I found a link while searching through their archive in April 2010 - is this it?

https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...ent/125/5/1088

I'm shocked they didn't take that down. It has the quote I was looking for:
"the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting."

[z726]

I'm shocked they didn't take that down. It has the quote I was looking for:
"the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting."

Yeah. Apparently they don't want their previous online publications being forcibly retracted.

[admin]

Yeah. Apparently they don't want their previous online publications being forcibly retracted.

Here we have our own archive of the AAP paper promoting legalized FGM:

https://foreskinrestoration.vbulletin.net/forum/intactivism/press-room-discussion/85391-2010-05-01-aap-journal-pediatrics-ritual-genital-cutting-of-female-minors-statement-by-aap-s-committee-on-bioethics

{https://foreskinrestoration.vbulletin.net/forum/intactivism/press-room-discussion/85391-2010-05-01-aap-journal-pediatrics-ritual-genital-cutting-of-female-minors-statement-by-aap-s-committee-on-bioethics}

AND coverage of their attempt at retracting that stance:

https://foreskinrestoration.vbulletin.net/forum/intactivism/press-room-discussion/85388-2010-05-26-ny-times-doctors-reverse-stand-on-circumcision-fgm-is-bad-again

{https://foreskinrestoration.vbulletin.net/forum/intactivism/press-room-discussion/85388-2010-05-26-ny-times-doctors-reverse-stand-on-circumcision-fgm-is-bad-again}