Political Correctness Insanity: The New York Times Won’t Use The Term ‘Female Genital Mutilation.’ They Don’t Want to ‘Offend’ The Mutilators.

Note: Here at Medical Miscreants, we very rarely republish articles by others. But this one, written by Immigration Law Expert Nolan Rappaport in Washington DC., is worth repeating. In fact, it should be yelled from the church belfry in every city in America.

Nolan Rappaport

Nolan Rappaport

The New York Times does not use the term “Female Genital Mutilation” (FGM) in its articles about a Michigan doctor who is being prosecuted for allegedly performing that procedure on two seven-year-old girls.  The Times calls the offense, “genital cutting,” despite the fact that the prosecution is based on a federal criminal provision entitled, “Female genital mutilation.”

If convicted, the doctor can be sentenced to incarceration for 5 years.

According to Celia Dugger, the Times’ Health & Science editor, “genital cutting” is a “less culturally loaded” term than “FGM.”  It will not widen the “chasm” between “advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite.”

“For reasons that are inexplicable to me, Dugger seems to think that there can be a legitimate difference of opinion on whether it is right to mutilate the genitals of a seven-year-old girl.”  


The New York Times does not want to offend the religious maniacs who do this

Also, her euphemism, “genital cutting,” makes FGM sound less horrific, which is a disservice to the victims and to the people who are trying to stop the practice.

Political correctness serves a valid purpose when it prevents a person from unnecessarily or unintentionally offending others, but I do not understand why we should be sensitive to the feelings of people who subject seven-year-old girls to genital mutilation.  

What is FGM?

The World Health Organization classifies FGM into four major types:

  • Type 1: Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris). 
  • Type 2: Often referred to as excision, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva ). 
  • Type 3: Often referred to as infibulation, this is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora, sometimes through stitching, with or without removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy). 
  • Type 4: This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

FGM is recognized internationally as a human rights violation.  It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and it constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women.  Also, because it usually is performed on minors, it is a violation of the rights of children.

How widespread is this practice?

The World Health Organization’s FGM fact sheet states that more than 200,000,000 girls and women alive today have been subjected to FGM in 30 different countries.  It usually is performed on young girls between infancy and age 15.

It has spread to Europe and other parts of the world too.  The European Commission estimates that hundreds of thousands of women living in Europe have been subjected to FGM and thousands more are at risk.  

The Center for Disease Control published a report in 2016 estimating that 513,000 women and girls in the United States were at risk of or may have been subjected to FGM in 2012.  This represents approximately a threefold increase from its prior estimate of 168,000, which was based on 1990 data.  The increase is attributed to a sharp rise in immigration from countries where FGM is practiced.  

The estimate probably is too low.  It does not include countries where FGM is practiced but for which there is no FGM information.  It does not include FGM data regarding undocumented immigrants either.  No one knows how many undocumented immigrants came from countries where FGM is practiced.

Reasons used to justify FGM:

In some communities, FGM almost universally is performed and is unquestioned.  It often is claimed to be a necessary part of raising a girl, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage.  It is supposed to foster premarital virginity and marital fidelity, and thus increases marriageability.

FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, such as the belief that removal of body parts that are considered unclean makes girls clean and beautiful.  In most societies where FGM is practiced, it is considered a cultural tradition.


According to GAO, there have been few FGM investigations or prosecutions.  Law enforcement and child protection officials told GAO that this may be due, in part, to the fact that incidents are not being reported.   

The prosecution of the Michigan doctor may be the first one.

The situation is no better in the United Kingdom.  Medical staff working in England’s National Health Service recorded approximately 5,500 FGM cases in 2016, but no one has been successfully prosecuted for performing FGM since the practice was banned more than 30 years ago.

This has to change.  It does not help to make FGM a felony offense if offenders are not going to be prosecuted. And the use of euphemisms like “genital cutting” that make FGM sound less horrific than it is, is yet another affront to the young girls and women who are forced to undergo the procedure.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for 3 years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.


Here is our story in April:



2 thoughts on “Political Correctness Insanity: The New York Times Won’t Use The Term ‘Female Genital Mutilation.’ They Don’t Want to ‘Offend’ The Mutilators.

  1. It is so sad that most people cringe at the horror of FGM but don’t want to hear about it, let alone deal with it. Changing the name of this horrific process doesn’t soften anything. Hopefully, this Doctor’s hard sentencing will stir up others and take notice of this child abuse. 5 years
    is not long enough!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s