Anti-FGM campaigner Hibo Wardere comes under attack

'I'm suggesting that the number of trans men who suffer FGM in Somalia is about the same proportion in the population in the UK, not that trans men in the UK are likely to have FGM. In the absence of other data, it's a reasonable assumption.'

What on earth?

The average age for fgm is under 5.

Under 5 years old.

I just can't believe some of the posts on here.

...who is a trans man who is a victim of such mutilation.

I Googled "trans men victims of genital mutilation" to see if I could find any real life examples of a person who is a trans who is a victim of such mutilation.

I didn't find any.

I did find this report. I haven't read all of it. It's called

Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation
but it could easily be sub- titled An exercise in whataboutery

www.nature.com/articles/s41443-020-0302-0?proof=t

And don't really care about the issue in itself, just that poor MTF trans people's feelings might be hurt that something they can't experience is termed a female issue.

Just like the "inherent cissexism" of a male murderer having "21 pieces of female genitalia in his freezer" was too much for one TRA:

www.womenarehuman.com/trans-rights-activist-misgendering-of-trans-people-worse-than-mutilation-of-women/

On the second point. Cis women (girls but they don't seem to be saying cis girls for some reason) definitely excludes trans men and non binary female people. By their own rules.

I think a lot of these people aren't very bright.

I'm suggesting that the number of trans men who suffer FGM in Somalia is about the same proportion in the population in the UK, not that trans men in the UK are likely to have FGM. In the absence of other data, it's a reasonable assumption.

No, it is not.

‘I’m a woman, get over it’

Just read some of the thread and the Twitter.

What jumps out at me, and I'm sure it's been noted already, is that of the posts criticising her language etc the vast vast majority of them are about transwomen.

And there's more than one suggestion that she say cis women.

On the first point, I'd have thought that it should be trans men and non binary female people who should be talked about.

The fact it's all about TW and hardly a mention of TM is very revealing.

On the second point. Cis women (girls but they don't seem to be saying cis girls for some reason) definitely excludes trans men and non binary female people. By their own rules.

So WTF is that all about?
They seem to be using cis to mean biological which is ?????

I'll read more of the thread now.

[quote DadJoke]@Notoriouslynotnotious

I don't think a campaigner against genital mutiliation should exactly be target number one for people who want language which is inclusive trans men. There are many better causes, and more transphobic individuals. Likewise, it surprises me that GC feminists spend so much of their time and energy against a tiny group of marginalised people, when there are other, more important issues to address.

Yes, it's trans exclusionary women rather than trans exlusionary men who get more attacked, and misogyny is at play there.[/quote]
Such a self- righteous post.

So far as the trans man in that twitter post, I am amazed at the narcissism, lack of sympathy and the inability to recognise what a prat they are.

He could, if he genuinely believes there are trans men who are (self) excluded from services available for the biological requirements of their bodies, have suggested "women, girls and other victims of female genital mutilation"

If the word "female" is too traumatic for the poor wee soul, he could have suggested "women, girls and other victims of such mutilation" or "women, girls and other victims of labial and clitoral mutilation"

Instead it's all about "me, me, me, think about my feelings" despite not being a victim and never having been at the slightest risk of being a victim.

Do you actually think this plays well outside your echo chambers, Dadjoke? I'll give you a headsup, if you like.

No, I’m suggesting they be included in issues which affect people with vaginas (primarily women) because they have vaginas.

They're all women and girls. Because woman/girl simply means an adult or child human female. And as pp pointed out, this isn't actually about having a vagina. It's about having other equally female genitalia. So "people with vaginas" is not the appropriate term. We all know it's simply a dehumanising shorthand for "women and girls". Like when the Women's March London used "menstruators" to refer to all the women in Parliament in 1973 regardless of their menstrual situation.

FTM trans people, although it likely affects zero percent of them, are included by virtue of being female in "female genital mutilation". The clue is in the name.

At this point, I'm reminded of the MNer who said her transman friend had been unable to access support after a rape that resulted in pregnancy, because local services only served women and transwomen, and the men's rape crisis service couldn't meet his needs regardingpregnancyafter rape

I find it hard to believe rape crisis and abortion support would not offer help to a person who is pregnant following rape regardless of what that person calls themselves.

[quote DadJoke]@gardenbird48

You are calling a woman who campaigns against Female Genital Mutilation transphobic because she will not agree to dilute her message and confuse people by referring to FGM victims as individuals with a cervix so as not to upset people who are female but don't wish to be referred to as such but are extremely unlikely ever to be a victim of FGM.

She's clearly slightly transphobic, yes. She has never said "it's because I don't want to dilute my message that I don't want to include trans men." When she talks about women, she's explicitly referring to biology, as do most posters here - it's trans exclusionary, the very definition of transphobic.

Her views are mild compared with the typical level of transphobia here and amongst the reactionary and religious right. She is doing good work, and I think it's misplaced to call her on this when there are so many more worthy targets. It's entirely possible to be a great fighter for a good cause and still have blind spots.

I did think that the trans man who asked for more inclusive language deserved a better response than "Not interested bye"[/quote]

Most people outside of woke circles and Twitter believe what Hibo believes. That females are people with (who knew) female biology.

All FGM victims have female biology. Why should she cave AMA pander to something that is against her beliefs and doesn't even affect trans people?

These TRAs are more outraged at ""non inclusive language"" than actual traumatic mutilation ffs.

So if Hibo will mention in a tweet transmen you will donate £500 to her charity dadjoke

What a strange thing to do

To buy someone’s well I don’t actually know what it is you are attempting to buy

Did you even watch her video ?

No, I’m suggesting they be included in issues which affect people with vaginas (primarily women) because they have vaginas

You really don't need to dehumanise women in this way. Only women have vaginas - no matter how they identify. A woman is a female. Only females have vaginas.

Thankfully I think that indicates that person has definitely not been an FGM victim and due to their age and apparent race (white European as far as I can see) is never likely to be a victim so Hibo can probably save some emotional worry by not needing to include that person in her campaigning.

Given the nature of Hibo's work I would imagine that it comes at quite a significant personal, emotional cost and could be fairly risky given some of the cultural mores involved.

I find it totally abhorrent and shocking that anyone would wish to add to that emotional load. It is also mind boggling that anyone should defend that.

I find the idea of demanding to be included in campaigning around fgm pretty abhorrent. It's not a fun club to part of. I am a white woman from Northern England. I am very happy that there is no need to centre women like me in fgm campaigning.

Dadjoke, I'm slightly surprised (not really) that in all your decades of important and earnest concern for the victims of FGM that it failed to register with you that its the vulva and clitoris that are cut and sewn up, not the vagina.

* I don’t want to exclude anyone*

Why would anyone want to be included in fgm if it hasn't happened to them.
Fight it. Sure. Raise awareness of course. But included. Really?

Ok but your quote said “include trans men in her feminism”.

Is campaigning around
issues which affect people with vaginas (primarily women) because they have vaginas.
feminism or not?

If so, then your request is tantamount to including men in feminism, because trans men have vaginas.

If we cannot call it feminism to campaign about issues relating to vaginas/female reproductive systems, because this implies that trans men are women, then you are taking feminism off women to validate someone’s identity.

Whichever way you look at it, it harms the cause.

I don’t want to exclude anyone, but the problem with this policing of language and dancing round to try to be inclusive is that it dilutes what should be a very clear message, that women are targeted because of their genitalia; and feminism is fighting against it. If it ceases to be seen as a women’s issue then that has implications.

No, I’m suggesting they be included in issues which affect people with vaginas (primarily women) because they have vaginas.

Trans men are females, so are included in the issue of FGM on that basis. Is your position that any reference to "woman" should be removed? That wouldn't be helpful or inclusive to the vast vast majority of girls and women who have faced FGM would it?