Okay, so I've written a couple of things recently which have been anti-FGM. The reason I have written them is because I am completely anti-FGM. I'm against the medicalisation of the cultural practises, I'm against the ritualised traditions that occur in specially constructed huts at the end of a garden as described in Cut and I am deeply disturbed that there are plastic surgeons who offer surgeries to "correct" or alter the look of a person's labia. I understand that this will not always be a cosmetic procedure and there will potentially be cases where women medically require such interventions, and I get that, but holy F it makes me uncomfortable to think of it, because so many of us hate the way our vaginas look and this type of "treatment" being available doesn't help.
Over the past couple of days my Twitter has been pretty loud with the debate as to whether Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and FGM should be on the same platform, and in some ways, I really agree with that, but the problem with that stance is the expectation that campaigners who are worked to stop FGM as part of a wider issue of violence against women and girls and the inequality that exists in the world have been feeling forced to adopt such a platform that is not theirs and not the one which they have devoted their time to, and it seems that some are keen to continue pushing for this to happen.
Now, the reason I am rehashing this here is that I've seen some of the responses to my comments and also the people supporting my view that FGM and MGM are separate issues within this space (i.e. when they're being talking about in a broader campaign regarding violence against women and girls like forced marriage and honour-based violence, or we are talking about equality) and a lot of them are either self-defining as TERFs or displaying a lot of media to support J.K.Rowling and the comments which she made which have lead people to term her as a TERF. I say it in that way because I accept that some see TERF as a derogatory word, but also because I've never seen her self-define as a TERF. For those not aware of the term, or where it came from, it's a shortening of the term Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist and was originally created by a person inside of said subgroup of feminists in order to differentiate between Radical Feminists and TERFs.
I'm going to state this as simply as I can - I am not a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
I am a very big believer that the rights of transwomen are women's rights issues. I'm also a big believer in bodily autonomy, particularly when it comes down to genital autonomy, so I don't believe in circumcision without specific medical necessity and only then by a qualified professional, and only if it was a situation where the child cannot wait until they are old enough to make that decision for themselves. I believe the same when it comes to the genital/bodily autonomy of someone who is intersex. It is not for a parent or a doctor to make a decision as to whether that person should be assigned male or female. Obviously, there is sometimes a medical need for some form of "corrective" surgery, but it is my understanding that very often surgery is performed to try and "normalise" the appearance of the genitals as opposed to being due to a reason of function.
I legitimately can't believe I'm having to sit here and say this, but it is something which is exceedingly important to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment