1200 women and girls subject to FGM in Glasgow in 5 years

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25660782.glasgow-treats-1-200-women-genital-mutilation

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/25662637.glasgow-treats-1-200-women-genital-mutilation/

'Laws protecting girls from genital mutilation remain unimplemented despite being passed five years ago – with more than 1,200 women ‘cut’ in Glasgow in that timeframe. '

Articles paywalled, can't find the source yet.

Nobody is minimising anything. Piercing is Type 4 FGM. If you include that in the stats, then maybe 1/20 women globally have had FGM. Otherwise I very much doubt that statistic. There may be regions of the world where that stat is true - and even higher. There was a place where it was more than 1/2 women had FGM. That was a small region of a country though. Like a village

Getting your clit pierced is FGM and counts towards FGM stats (or should do as we have been instructed in the NHS). FGM isn't only FGM when it involves children. In fact, some cultures do it at adulthood.

Your age doesnt mean you can consent to FGM. We don't say to Somali women that if they just wait until adultthood, it is fine amd so they can groom their children to think they have to have it at 18 instead of 8.

So yes, those women with genital piercings have FGM too. It is just the more accepted kind because we get why a woman might want her clit pierced. Or several rings through her labia to give the appearance of the vaginal opening being fastened or otherwise restricted from access/pleasure. These are fairly routine body modifications you can get in your local piercing studio.

90% of women affected by FGM have Type 1 or Type 2, the definitions of which I posted upthread.

Yes. That number would change if we properly counted everything that counts as FGM. My point is that if the 1/20 stats only include brown women around the world who have had types 1-3, then the statistic is wrong. Maybe the study that produced it was flawed. If they DID count everyone who has had type 4 as well, then maybe it is correct.

'Female genital mutilation is currently documented in 92 countries around the world through either nationally representative data, or using indirect estimates, small-scale studies or anecdotal evidence and media reports. This highlights the global nature of this harmful practice and the need for a global and comprehensive response to eliminate it.

In Africa, 33 countries generate female genital mutilation data from nationally representative data: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
In the Middle East, the practice occurs in Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as in Iraq, Iran, Jordan and the State of Palestine.

Asian countries with female genital mutilation practice include India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand, Brunei, Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, The Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and The Maldives.

Female genital mutilation is also reported in New Zealand and Australia.
In Europe, female genital mutilation is practiced in Georgia, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom.

It is also reported in the United States, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru in South America.'

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/female-genital-mutilation

'The piercing of the female genitalia to adorn it with jewellery or other accessories purely for the purpose of personal decoration or to enhance the sensation of sexual contact, as commonly understood and practised, is unlikely to involve excision, infibulation or mutilation. In respect of the dictionary definition provided above, it does not as commonly understood involve invasion, destruction, wounding, violence or disfiguration so as to amount to mutilation. An allegation founded on genital piercing is unlikely to meet the evidential stage required for a prosecution under the FGM Act 2003. However, each case must be considered on its own facts and merits and the merits and the medical evidence carefully considered.

A person cannot consent to conduct that involves actual or grievous bodily harm contrary to sections 47, 20 and 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 unless good reason is established: R v Brown (Anthony) [1994] 1 AC 212. In M(B) [2018] EWCA Crim 560 the Court of Appeal confirmed that good reason applies not just to ear piercing but other bodily piercings and adornments, as distinct from body modification. Accordingly, where a woman agrees by choice to a genital piercing and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice, an assault charge is unlikely to be appropriate. Conversely, an assault charge should be considered where the evidence demonstrates an absence of consent.'

That is an extraordinarily high number - I do hope those figures are wildly inaccurate.

You're doing lots of looking about what is reported, but not so much into looking at how they collate the data, specifically how women with FGM are identified.

See my point is that if the classification says that piercing is type 4 FGM, but you dont even ask women if they've had genital piercing unless you think it is for cultural purposes (so never asking white women), then your data is going to be skewered. You aren't identifying everyone who has had FGM.

That's a clinical risk because you could have someone get all the way to end of pregnancy without realising they've had FGM because you thought it didn't happen "where they come from".

But in the NHS, we aren't bothered about whether it counts as assault. We are concerned from a clinical and safeguarding perspective.

On a wider note, we have to be careful not to be ethnocentric in how we look at practices. Yes we have trained legal piercers and even surgeons that will perform type 4 FGM, but that is because we have decided as a culture that it is acceptable to want these cosmetic procedures - especially where is thought to enhance function.

Being pierced doesnt mean that you will have the social services at your door, or the police. Not unless it was something you had as a child or you routinely did to children in your family. Just means that you form part of the data of women who have had what we call FGM (type 4). A non cosmetic, potentially harmful procedure to adhere to cultural or personal values.

These figures, again not properly explained are from an article I posted as a new thread yesterday.

At least 137,000 women are thought to be victims of the practice in Britain, and in 14,355 women and girls attended hospital or GP appointments in relation to complications from FGM, compared to 12,475 the year before.

But maybe at least women do feel able to approach the NHS ie an increase in 2,000 in one year. Whether these are the same women plus another 2,000 or 14,000+ new in one year it doesn't say.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5453773-5453773-uk-to-end-flagship-anti-fgm-programme

Under the 2020 legislation, courts are supposed to have the power to request that the victim of FGM is taken to a safe place, protected from threats and harassment and to prevent them from being taken abroad for the procedure.

The protection orders could be requested from the court, by a woman or girl at risk or who has experienced FGM, local authorities and the police.

It also creates guidance for public authorities to spot the signs or those at risk of FGM.

Prior to the Bill passing through Holyrood, Scottish ministers listed February 2021 as its earliest possible commencement.

Since 2005, there has been just six offences recorded under FGM by Police Scotland. One was record in 2019 and two in 2020.

Another two were ‘detected’ and a further recorded between 2021 and 2022.

FGM is significantly under-reported, however at least 138 women were detected as victims by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in 2017and 2018.

In NHS Lothian, which covers <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/UnNMT/www.heraldscotland.com/local-news/edinburgh-news/?ref=au" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Edinburgh, 93 women were believed to have been subjected to FGM.

And between 1997 and 2011, 2,403 girls were born in Scotland to a mother from an FGM-practicing country, data from the Scottish Government showed.

from archive article https://archive.is/UnNMT

"and in 14,355 women and girls attended hospital or GP appointments in relation to complications from FGM, compared to 12,475 the year before."

I wonder what they counted here. So for example, if a woman attended with a UTI and she had undergone FGM in her past, would she count?

Also, there is a routine procedure for women who have had type 3 FGM in the prenatal period of their first pregnancy. Some hospitals have a regular clinic for these women. Would they count everyone who has had this procedure (they probably should) as part of the data?

I ask because my obstetric assessment unit definitely did not collate data for emergency admissions that would isolate women who specifically attended due to complications of FGM. Women who attended for any reason (or specific reasons) AND had FGM in their past could be audited.

I wonder what they counted here.

This comes up on so many threads about any number of issues.

So it would be really good to have confidence in NHS data collection.

I find it had to believe that 14,000+ new cases would have been recorded in on year. But maybe they did.

Is it the journalist who dont understand and aim for a screaming headline or is it that the data collection is bad and / or badly presented.

Have no time to look at this now but have found this, for England and Wales. So probably one for Scotland.

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/female-genital-mutilation/january---march-2025

That's an astonishing number, I would want to see a source.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2025/09/25/jme-2025-110961

Treading a right-on path there.