Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archives

Archive 1

About archives • Edit this box

Contents 1 Comment 2 Proposed structure changes 3 Newly expanded rewrite 4 Excessive POV 5 Back to list

[edit] Comment

I have some issues with a structure that equates Female genital cutting with circumcision and "designer vaginas". If you visit Female genital cutting#History of terminology you can review a number of sources that explain the reasoning behind 30 year trend of extricating FGC from the non-analogous and euphemistic language of circumcision. Equating FGC with cosmetic surgery trivializes the cultural significance of such rituals. However, because FGC is cultural, there are some sound arguments for giving it its own category distinctly separate from circumcision and "designer vaginas", as long as it is given a NPOV treatment covering cultural and medicalization aspects. Also, the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources. As FGC is the main page (for FGC), language on this page should reflect that. Phyesalis (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The present structure (and indeed the article) is a bit of a mess. What structure would you propose? Jakew (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kind of a mess" is exactly the phrase that went through my head. See below. Photouploaded (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment indicating that the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources is completely untrue. There is no such consensus.

The many recent changes to this article, removing information on types of female genital modification, and removing the table of procedures, seem to serve a POV purpose, expressed by Phyesalis' POV above that one cannot "equate" FGC and cosmetic surgery. Is there a reason for these changes that serves the neutral point of view? Blackworm (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed structure changes

I'm just going to separate this thread. I see this as a parent page for all these subjects, ja? So, I would separate aesthetic/individual choices of modifications (btw - no piercing or penile bifurcation?) from cultural(FGC), from circumcision (or religious/health - not offering an opinion, just sticking with the two dominant frames of ref.) and from sexual reassignment surgery (lumping this in with aesthetic may be seen as trivializing it, too). So, I see 4 distinct categories. I don't have any firm ideas on ordering these, except maybe to put them in order of section length (makes for an easier read). Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, historically the "reason" for this page was to have a page called "genital mutilation" (the original name) and then to express the viewpoint that circumcision was a form of this. An attempt was made to make the title conform to NPOV, and the content really just grew from there. I don't personally see it as a 'parent article' - rather, it's an attempt to group a bunch of procedures as seen from the viewpoint that they are all modifications/mutilations of the genitals.

I think that imposing structure or narrative tends to inherently advance a POV, and would therefore suggest a simple, flat structure. I would be inclined to restructure the page as either a) a list, or b) a category. Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it (and saw that there is indeed piercing and bisection - ack!). Either would be an improvement. Making it a category seems to mitigate all sorts of issues. But if we do a list, I would support maintaining the order/organization of(A or B)male and (A or B)female and (C) sexual reassignment. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with the idea of moving towards a list/category structure. The previous version was really a mess. The lede was badly written, the structuring of "male circumcision" / "female circumcision" / "female genital modification surgery" didn't make sense (seeing as those aren't the main categories), and then the table was filled with redirect links, and organized badly (genital tattooing was listed under "additions to tissue", alongside phalloplasty). I removed all the redirects and left only the individual articles. I also removed the bloated EL section. Let me know what you think, whether this can stay this way, where we ought to take it from here. Photouploaded (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! I think that's a huge improvement. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's strange to see Jakew calling the addition of unsourced, uncited, POV material a "huge improvement" considering his long history of guarding all circumcision-related articles against (some) such policy violations. Is this stuff going to be sourced soon, Photouploaded? I remind you of WP:V. Blackworm (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Struck out the above, as I was referring to changes Photouploaded made after Jakew's comment, as Jakew kindly pointed out on my talk page. I apologize to Jakew for my confusion and rude comment. Blackworm (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This article seems entirely superfluous to requirements, as almost all of the material covered in it is also covered in the main articles for each topic. I propose that this page be replaced with a redirect page of the 'Genital modification and mutilation may refer to:' variety, and any unique content being merged into the appropriate article. Bagofants (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newly expanded rewrite

I have now expanded the list version, which I created, into an actual, written article. I welcome feedback. Photouploaded (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-done. Your efforts have brought about a more concise and neutral article. I thought you did a great job on the headers and and the wording of the "sex assignment" section. Phyesalis (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of female genital cosmetic surgeries is unexplained, as they are clearly "genital modification" and fall directly within the scope of this article. Blackworm (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The section was lost in the transition. First I distilled the article into a list of articles. I was going to leave it at that, but then I realized that I was comfortable expanding the article, so I did so. I did so, starting from the list of articles. Vaginoplasty was included in the new version, but only in regards to sex reassignment surgery. I simply forgot the other form of vaginoplasty as all I was looking at was the list. To correct this error, I have created a small section in regards to elective plastic surgery on the vulva. Photouploaded (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive POV

After reading this article, it seems to me that the text within sections "Involuntary sex assignment" and "Female genitals" is very POV. Likewise, the list within "See also" may be biased, considering which articles are mentioned. I don't have the time right now but I may elaborate on this later. What does everyone else think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a POV issue, or more of a need for some choice rewording for clarity? I think the phrase "it may not be clear whether the child is female or male" could be reworded, maybe "botched" could be changed-the Reimer article states he "was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was inadvertently destroyed during circumcision." Is that better? As for Female genitals, I think the "forced" is a bit strong. Were there other issues you saw that I haven't mentioned? Phyesalis (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the see also links - they were a bit odd. Any issues? Phyesalis (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back to list

Thank you, Photouploaded, for your efforts to improve the article. Perhaps we might want to consider going back to the list format that you put together here? What do you all think? Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? I put at least an hour of work into creating the article. Can't we balance the POV concerns? Photouploaded (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phyesalis. Photouploaded, despite your good efforts to improve the article, I think that for the time being going back to the list format is preferable. Editors seem to disagree on the scope of the topic, and the entire article text is currently unsourced (see WP:V). Beginning with a list format would allow for slow, steady progress from a reasonably clean slate, citing reliable sources along the way, should editors see a need to expand on the topic. Blackworm (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with Phyesalis and Blackworm. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the work you've done in converting it to prose is bad, but I think that a list format is simply more suitable than an article format. As a list, it is essentially just a guide to navigating through the encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that reverting to a list is hasty. I was hoping that people would be interested to help find sources, provide feedback and contrasting opinions, and pull it towards NPOV. Why is everyone so quick to provide negative opinions? Why not help improve the article? I never said that I could create a perfect article all on my own. I was hoping people would come together and work on it. Instead all I'm hearing is that we should can it entirely. Very disappointing response, I must say. Photouploaded (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone expects you to write a perfect article, Photouploaded, and in fact given the subject matter I think your efforts are impressive. The problem lies in the task of writing an article about "genital modification and mutilation", not in your work.

The first problem with writing about "genital modification and mutilation" is that the phrase itself appears to be completely unused in reliable sources (Google Scholar returns 0 hits for the phrase), making sourcing inherently problematic, and suggesting that any content is likely to be original research.

The article appears to be a synthesis of two topics: an attempt to enumerate procedures which alter the genitals, and the fact that some people view some of these procedures as mutilation. This itself has OR issues, but also introduces two other problems. First, there is a lack of focus: it is like trying to write an article about "rock bands of the 1980s and rock bands that some people dislike". How can you write clearly about such a subject? Moreover, how can anyone make sense of the content? Second, an article about both a set of procedures and a single viewpoint about those procedures is almost certain to become a POV fork, even if that isn't intentional.

Some of these problems could perhaps be addressed by renaming the article to "genital modification", "genital alteration", or "procedures affecting the genitals". But if we were to do this, what would such an article offer that isn't achieved through a simple category? Do we need to have articles about procedures affecting other specific body parts, too? Jakew (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The clear answer is that there would finally be a relevant place for to read about [-BW] all the scholarship comparing various modifications and mutilations of the genitals across cultures and across the sexes, including issues of risk, harm, consent, ethnocentricity of views, and gender bias.

I believe you should also disclose, Jakew, your efforts to have this article deleted from Wikipedia.[Irrelevant. -BW] Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As presented, this seems to be a writer-oriented argument (to loosely paraphrase, "I'd like to write about X, so let's have an place in which I can do so"). Would you mind reframing it in terms of the reader? How would (s)he benefit from the existence of such an article? Jakew (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how the above carried any notions of being writer- rather than reader-oriented, but I've used strikeout to recast my response at your request. Blackworm (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. To adapt my earlier analogy, this seems like "rock bands of the 1980s, rock bands that some people dislike, and comparisons between some of these rock bands". If, as you suggest, the reader wants to learn about the comparisons, then this seems an indirect and somewhat messy structure. Do you have any thoughts about other possible approaches? Jakew (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)