Compromise is the key - In response to Duncan.

The Shell-Duncan article was chosen well to represent all sides in the debate surrounding FGC. I had a hard time trying to navigate my own thoughts and feelings about the topic while reading this paper. It's probably the same conflict that many feel - the tug between the rights of people to practice culture versus the risks associated with the tradition. I was disappointed that the paper did not go over the statistics of FGC in terms of infection, mental health, etc. It would have been nice to know those specific numbers because that really could make all the difference.

It seemed like maternal health was the main focus when it came to the issues of health impacts. And although the specific numbers for that weren’t prominent enough, we are still overlooking the other health aspects of FGC as mentioned above. Otherwise the paper did an interesting job of understanding and leaning a bit away from activists against FGC. To me the most though-provoking part was when the human rights arguments came up in the paper. Shell-Duncan did an excellent job at tackling why the “rights” framework doesn’t have the full capacity to tackle FGC – in part because the rights listed can shift based upon the lens being used. What is the norm of development? Is it gender discrimination if the women are partaking in it willfully?

I didn't fully agree with the argument of consent that Duncan puts forth, because is it really consent if there is pressure from tradition, community, and family that is pushing you towards the act? Yes, westerners do reconstructive surgery and although it is the norm to practice it - it is also the norm to not practice it. Basically, if you choose not to get a tattoo or breast reconstruction there is no stigma attached to your status in the community. But in the case of these African girls it must almost be impossible to defy the act because of its tie to marriage and that of status to marriage as a woman too. What alternative path to not partaking is there for these girls? I wish the paper also went into consequences of what saying no to FGC meant.

I was disappointed that Shell-Duncan didn’t go into detail about the different FGC practices in tribes across Africa or in regions of Asia or anywhere else. I feel that those against FGC are quick to go to the extreme stories about FGC where it is done in a brutal manner but it is important to understand that in other places that story is quite the opposite and women are happy to partake in it and consider it beneficial in terms of aesthetics (similar to western women getting labia reductions, clitoral piercings, etc.). If sterility and lack of anesthetics is the argument that some are choosing then I ask why not provide them health care workers or educate CHW to do FGC in a better manner versus abolishing the very act. We do this in the case of vaccines and such.

There is no way to go about solving this issue, if you feel it needs to be solved, but by redefining the culture. Some compromise needs to be reached, for example, by letting doctors do it like the AAP came up with. That way you are slowly and gradually making the act more progressive and safer. Going at this from a top-down approach will not make it better - a middle ground has to be reached. I am neither against or not an advocate for FGC at this time.

-Dechen Dolkar