Genital Mutilation is a Systemic Problem

It's been over 16 years since my first son was born and I started studying genitalia and genital cutting rituals of the world.  I have studied the anatomy and reasons people use to excuse the various forms of cutting it.

Trying to educate people about these rituals is probably the most challenging undertaking ever.  Let me explain with some comparisons:

• Foot-binding in China was considered a difficult ritual to stop.  Even when the government outlawed the practice, it still took a lot of shaming to get people to stop.
  
  
• Gay Pride has been a long and arduous process that still continues to this day, but allowing someone to choose their own sexuality does not impinge on other people's identities, religious beliefs,  cultural followings, or perceived parental rights.

And, neither of these has/had deep roots in economics:

• Female genital cutting rituals are often tied to the family being able to sell their daughter to a husband.
  
  
• The person that performs the procedure often depends on the income.
  
  
• Other economic groups benefit from the continuation of the practices:
• Sex lube companies
• Erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals/supplements
• Cosmetics and healthcare companies that sell the remnants
  
  
• In a country like the USA, medical organizations changing their positions on the topics put them at risk of legal liability.

In fact, Gay Pride has gotten a huge influx of funds once there was sufficient public support.  I have yet to see a large organization publicly sponsor genital autonomy.

Even with all of this in play, I figured there would still be opportunities to educate people on a large scale:

• Public education: sex education in middle, junior, and high schools mainly focuses on reproduction and never talks about sensuality.  Often, images of male genitalia leave out the prepuce.  I have yet to hear of a sex-ed class that covers genital mutilation rituals.  They avoid the topic for obvious reasons: parents.  Attempting to work with educators to make even the slightest improvements has proved fruitless.
  
  
• Medical schools: A 2004 study was performed by Gary L. Harryman that found that 71% of the primary images of the human penis are incorrect in anatomical source materials.  A researcher by the name of Jessica Ann Pin found that materials fail to cover the clitoris.  The Sorrells study was performed for the penis sensitivity to light touch, but I have not found something similar for the vulva. You would think that getting additional details about the vulva put into medical education would be easy, but that clearly has not been Jessica's experience.  I would think female medical professionals would jump at the opportunity to support her.
  
  
• Religious institutions: Considering that the New Testament (Christian Bible) has many scriptures that speak to the topic, you would think that it would be discussed in sermons at Christian churches.  I've attended several different Christian denominations and married someone who attended a Lutheran college.  Not once do I remember being taught about the topic.  When I reach out to the leaders (Archdiocese of Catholic Church, Bishop of Lutheran Church), I never hear anything back.  What really surprises me is that the Lutheran Bishop in my area is a lesbian that fervently speaks out in defense of the LGBT community!  This surprises me because that is about self-determination about sexual choice, which genital cutting rituals of children takes away.  I have spoken with a couple pastors who both identified concerns about being viewed as anti-Semitic if they DO cover the topic.  I can think of many ways of covering it while still avoiding that.
  
  
• Medical organizations: When my wife was seeing an OBGYN during her first pregnancy, they asked her whether to "circumcise" or not.  Coming from a medical authority like this, it comes across as though it is something that a parent should do.  Particularly since the question goes along with other questions like the Vitamin K shot.  When she was inquisitive, they offered no information.  No "go read this" or "go research that" or here's an information pamphlet; nothing.  Luckily she decided to change to a different provider who shared information that sent us down the rabbit hole.  Why is it that these medical organizations only provide the claimed benefits from correlative studies (that don't prove the benefits) but, not discuss the value of leaving the part there? What risk is there in letting people know that the part IS innervated (has feeling)?
  
  When reaching out to medical boards to get them to make reasonable changes, we are stonewalled.  The American Academy of Pediatrics used to allow booths where people were educated about the anatomy and functions, but no longer.
  
  I reached out to the California Medical Board about a urologist that incorrectly identified that sexual function was not affected even though there is plenty of evidence that it is.  They did this via TikTok.  While they did not disagree with me, they chose to do nothing because it would "not result in disciplinary action."  I wasn't asking them to discipline the urologist, I was simply hoping that they would notify the urologist of the discrepancy.
  
  Even the American Academy of Pediatrics once defended a form of cultural/religious female genital cutting.  There are places in the world where female genital cutting is performed by medical providers.  Do you think they would tell parents about how it harms?
  
  
• Media: Even documentaries focused on female genital mutilation do not get wide distribution by major media outlets.  It was a huge deal when the American Circumcision documentary got on Netflix, but Netflix has a penchant for controversial topics.  Unfortunately, that was also a short-lived success as it is no longer available via Netflix.
  
  Social media is well known for having things stay within bubbles (echo chambers).  I've attempted boosting/promoting some things on social media to only run into walls there too.  If there is too much controversy, Tiktok removes the promotions.  Facebook and Twitter have certain hoops that you have to jump through and being such a controversial topic, these platforms will often default to not allowing posts at all.
  
  Mainstream media seems to be averse to reporting on the topic themselves.  Daniel Rold (Next Level Intactivism) put together a system and gathered many volunteers to do outreach to news organizations in masse. While there have been some successes, the success rate is less than stellar.  I can only speculate as to why the mainstream news organizations don't report on the topic.  I imagine it has something to do with who owns the news organizations, relationships with religious groups and medical organizations.

In general, the topic is treated like a hot potato.  Every person with any kind of authority in one of these realms refers me to someone further up the chain of command and when I attempt to communicate with those individuals I never get a response.  And, I've seen evidence of other people's attempts as well.

Georganne Chapin from Intact America puts it as "dismantle the circumcision machine."  It truly IS a big and complex machine.  What part of it can we dismantle first?  Honestly, I'm running out of ideas.  I may just have to accept that activism is our only option for now and it may be our only option for a long time to come.