Consider this first paragraph:
More men are turning up for Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Nyanza following a rapid campaign, latest study has shown.
Compare it to this first paragraph:
Consolata Nyansu, 11, is a girl in distress following pressure from her family to face the circumciserâ€™s knife.
These two articles are from the same newsÂ¹ source, separated by a little more than two weeks. The narrative never changes. Males volunteer to undergo genital cutting. Females are forced to undergo genital cutting. Yet, when looking closer, this narrative predictably fails. (emphasis added)
“With last yearâ€™s [Rapid Results Initiative], we have now reached almost 230,450 men and boys with VMMC services,” [Nyanza PC Francis] Mutie said.
So it’s not all men volunteering. The article offers this explanation:
[Nyanza Provincial Director of Public Health Jackson] Kioko also said the initiative had also succeeded in reaching its target age group â€” men older than 15 â€” who can benefit most from male circumcision for HIV prevention. About 84 per cent of the clients were in this age group.
Fifteen is playing loose with the definition of man versus boy, but it may not be objectionable here since a 15-year-old is theoretically capable of giving consent free of outside pressure. However, the next paragraph provides insight into a possible explanation for the change in 2010:
During the first RRI study for [Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision] in 2009, which reached more than 36,000 men in 30 days, 47 per cent of clients were under 15.
That means, in 2009 under this allegedly voluntary male circumcision initiative, approximately 16,920 “men” were boys under 15-years-old. Perhaps some of them were 11-years-old (or younger), like Consolata Nyansu? Did they really volunteer?
I do not intend any trivialization of what is done to girls like Consolata Nyansu. My purpose here is to demonstrate that the narrative does not justify the illusion of disparity assumed between male and female genital cutting. The issues are the child’s lack of medical need and lack of consent. Any other reason is an excuse that should be dismissed.
This includes scenarios where facts are ignored to present what someone “knows”. The inclusion of this, from the second article, is admirable since it would likely be edited out of any Western article. (emphasis added):
Rabu Boke Yusuf, 50, from Ntimaru never underwent FGM because her resolute father stood by her.
“It is parents, especially women, who excite the desire to undergo the ‘cut’. A parent falsely tells her daughter that her age mates have been ‘cut’ to make them interested. Women are yet to believe their daughters can be married without being circumcised,” says Boke.
Any Western society discussion of FGM will include comments that it is men imposing it on women to control sexuality. The example here is not meant to suggest that men don’t impose FGM on their daughters or that’s it’s not done to control sexuality. I aim to demonstrate that facts are more complicated than that simple summary. Facts don’t care what we want to be true. Our own biases allow us to wrap this issue in points beyond protecting children from unnecessary genital cutting. We use that to pretend that gender is relevant to distinguishing between bad non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person and “good” non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person. That’s the implicit demand in the two articles because the first sweeps aside any distinction between man and boy and how that affects the voluntary aspect of voluntary male circumcision.
Â¹ This is from Kenya, but it is the default approach for most discussions of non-therapeutic genital cutting in the United States.