When is FGM not FGM?

[LaSqrrl]

I thought I would highlight this rather brilliant comment by @MrsWooster, from the 'MN Grass Account' thread, which devolved into something else.

I did not want that comment to get lost, because it really has a lot of merit:

Interesting intellectual debate about thm: if fgm law only applies to girls' labia, clitoris etc then if a parent were to claim their child was AND ALWAYS HAD BEEN a girl then any surgery on that child to reshape the genitals into a more conformable shape would, in fact, fall under fgm legislation?

Interesting idea, because it uses their own viewpoint against them, doesn't it? As in 'was and always had been a girl'.

For the record, I am against ALL genital mutilation, including circumcision, which is also ritual-based in nature, as well as unnecessary (a load of other reasons as well, but that is a de-rail). And also, rather obviously, against 'transing kids' with hormones, surgery, etc.

FGM has been deemed a transphobic term as it links "female" to labia clitoris etc.

The "correct" way to do it would be to only reference the parts and exclude the words "female" "girl" etc from all comentary and laws, fro example not refer to the people this is done to as "female" or "girls". Suggestions for alternatives that I have seen are not really apt as there are various methods of FGM. I am sure the trans groups will come up with a "better" way of putting it soon, so that the fact this is done to girls for various reasons relating to their sexuality and virginity status will be nicely obscured.

I do not believe the law would ever be used to prosecute a parent for performing a circumcision on someone who became a girl, it may be tried as a get-out for people being done for FGM ("but X is a boy") but I sincerely doubt it.