Female genital piercings count as FGM and have to be reported.

[WhoTheFuckIsSimon]

So any pregnant woman with genital piercings will be reported to the hospital safeguarding team who collate figures and pass figures of all FGM inc piercings onto the Home Office. I'm talking about adults who have chosen to do this themselves.

I doubt the home office are collecting statistics of male genital piercings.

If the UK implement safeguarding measures how are they honestly to know whether or not it was the woman's choice? Because it's a pretty ring? What is the criteria to determine mutilation etc. The women genuinely being abused and mutilated may well say it was with their consent.

True. There's also the fact that the word "consent" is thrown around way too carelessly. Just because a woman said, for some reason "Okay, let's do this", that doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing. People can decide to do rather harmful things to themselves.

What about those labia surgeries that seem to be getting fashionable? I do think the fact that women are willingly doing this to their bodies is a symptom of a problem.(and it is much closer to FGM than a piercing )

Sorry Simon, I must be being thick here, because I can't find where in your NHS link it says that it has to be reported to anyone, just that it has to be recorded on the woman or girl's health record. Whereas on the links poppies posted it states that all under 18's with genital piercing have to be reported to appropriate authorities.

The extremely hard to read because it's got "archived" stamped all over it NHS guidance says that there is a duty to report all instances of FGM in active caseloads in their stats, is this what you're talking about? As opposed to actually reporting the crime to someone in authority?

There also seems to be some odd confusion around genital piercings of the clit ring type and genital piercing as a precursor to FGM, or as part of FGM. So yes, woolly, and makes for inaccurate figures. Plus, what's the point of collecting those figures anyway, if nothing is going to happen as a result of the reporting?

In my line of NHS work, reporting meant telling someone who could do something about it, not filling in some pointless bloody form, which may be where I've become confused.

I have mine pierced, twice. I remember another piercer telling me when he saw them that the one through my actual clit is classed as FGM and is illegal. The one through the hood, isn't.

Clitoral hood still counts as FGM.

Palmer, no I just meant report to our safeguarding team who are the ones who are collating data I guess. They say that for a piercing they wouldn't follow it up, just add up the figures every month and send to the home office. Though if it's (what most people would call) actual FGM then they will follow it up as there is the risk that any children in the family could be at risk.

I doubt the home office are collecting statistics of male genital piercings.

So are you presenting this as some sort of patriarchal oppression of women? If not, what is the point of this comment?

Ironically, I doubt "bottom surgery" for trans people of either sex will be counted in the same way, even though it's unambiguously genital mutilation.

Well, at least they follow up on the actual FGM, and presumably under 18s with genital piercings. However, I agree that simply recording incidence of such a wide definition of FGM as a numbers exercise makes little sense.

As VestalVirgin said:
What about those labia surgeries that seem to be getting fashionable? I do think the fact that women are willingly doing this to their bodies is a symptom of a problem.(and it is much closer to FGM than a piercing )

If making a little hole for jewellery needs to be reported, how can labiaplasty (that's the term I've heard) not get reported too? Talk about mutilation, that's all too similar to what they do in Africa, and yet I doubt if it's ever going to get reported on the same level as a piercing. Can the issue be that one is done by medical people and the other isn't?

Agree with te and womb

So are they not looking at mens peircing because there isnt an equivalent term?

Never ever been told this and I catheterise quite often.

Why would they look at men's piercings when men are not subject to anything remotely equivalent to FGM (and I speak as a man)? You might say that circumcision should be included, but I don't really think they compare in terms of brutality and damage. I did ask the OP, but she hasn't been back since. Her comment just seemed like carping for the sake of it. For people, especially on a feminist board, to complain that men are not subject to the same checks seems unreal to me, given the brutal and sadistic nature of FGM.

When you look at the overall FGM picture, is this really such an inconvenience?

Of course I don't actually think they should look at male piercings. But I also think they shouldn't be looking at female piercings.

There is a world of difference between a piercing and FGM. And yes FGM should be reported. But they shouldn't be including piercings. The home office accept that there's 4 classifications and each classification is fairly detailed to help a HCP differentiate. So why don't they either say that class 4 isn't FGM or say that they're not bothered about class 4 being reported.

It's not helpful to include class 4 figures in overall FGM reporting as it just makes a total mockery of the figures. And being unable to provide meaningful data will not help the battle against FGM.

I am sorry Grimarse for not coming back to the thread earlier. Ive been at work.

I'm not saying it's a patriarchal oppression of women......I am saying its a crock of meaningless shit which is firstly offensive to women with piercings and dp secondly does a disservice to women who have been subjected to actual FGM.

Just to quickly say that Daughters of Eve does want type 4 FGM figures included in reporting.

Content warning for fairly graphic depictions of FGM. Here

Daughters of eve says;

Type 4 FGM

*Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, stretching and cauterising the genital area.

Daughters of Eve are interested in furthering understanding and recognition of the forms of mutilation which are currently categorised as "Type 4". By developing better descriptions and definitions we believe we can help women and healthcare workers to deal with rarer forms of FGM. If you have expertise or information which could help, please contact us.*

I wonder if it's more non consensual stuff they're interested in being recognised especially stuff like scraping and cauterising which to me sounds quite different from a piercing.

Yes, I think so, it does seem odd that western style genital piercing has been lumped in with the completely different meaning of piercing prevalent with FGM? Because that's not little bars put in in a nice clean salon somewhere...

Maybe the NHS is erring on the side of far too much caution here.

(and sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, I'm just trying to understand why the two kinds of piercing have become conflated.)

grim

Thats exactly what i was saying

There is no male equivalent to FGM so is that why they are not looking at male piercings

And i certainly didnt complain about it