According to the World Health Organization the following forms
of FGM are used:
Description
of the different types of female genital mutilation
Female genital mutilation is usually
performed by traditional practitioners, generally elderly women in
the community specially designated for this task, or traditional
birth attendants. In some countries, health professionals trained
midwives and physicians are increasingly performing female genital
mutilation. In Egypt, for example, preliminary results from the 1995
Demographic and Health Survey indicate that the proportion of women
who reported having been circumcised by a doctor was 13%. In
contrast, among their most recently circumcised daughters, 46% had
been circumcised by a doctor.
The procedures employed in each type of
female genital mutilation are described below.
Type I
In the commonest form of this procedure
the clitoris is held between the thumb and index finger, pulled out
and amputated with one stroke of a sharp object. Bleeding is usually
stopped by packing the wound with gauzes or other substances and
applying a pressure bandage. Modern trained practitioners may insert
one or two stitches around the clitoral artery to stop the
bleeding.
Type II
The degree of severity of cutting varies
considerably in this type. Commonly the clitoris is amputated as
described above and the labia minora are partially or totally
removed, often with the same stroke. Bleeding is stopped with packing
and bandages or by a few circular stitches which may or may not cover
the urethra and part of the vaginal opening. There are reported cases
of extensive excisions which heal with fusion of the raw surfaces,
resulting in pseudo-infibulation even though there has been no
stitching. Types I and II generally account for
80-85% of all female genital mutilation, although the proportion may
vary greatly from country to country.
Type III
The amount of tissue removed is
extensive. The most extreme form involves the complete removal of the
clitoris and labia minora, together with the inner surface of the
labia majora. The raw edges of the labia majora are brought together
to fuse, using thorns, poultices or stitching to hold them in place,
and the legs are tied together for 2-6 weeks. The healed scar creates a hood of skin which covers the urethra and part or most of the
vagina, and which acts as a physical barrier to intercourse. A small
opening is left at the back to allow for the flow of urine and
menstrual blood. The opening is surrounded by skin and scar tissue
and is usually 2-3 cm in diameter but may be as small as the head
of a matchstick.
If after infibulation the posterior opening is large enough, sexual intercourse can take place after gradual dilatation, which may take weeks, months or, in some recorded cases, as long as two years. If the opening is too small to start the
dilatation, recutting (defibulation) before intercourse is
traditionally undertaken by the husband or one of his female
relatives using a sharp knife or a piece of glass. Modern couples may
seek the assistance of a trained health professional, although this
is done in secrecy, possibly because it might undermine the social
image of the man's virility.
In almost all cases of infibulation and in many cases of severe excision, defibulation must also be
performed during childbirth to allow exit of the fetal head without
tearing the surrounding scar tissue. If no experienced birth
attendant is available to perform defibulation, fetal and/or maternal
complications may occur because of obstructed labour or perineal
tears. Traditionally,
"re-infibulation" is performed after the woman gives birth.
The raw edges are stitched together again to create a small posterior
opening, often the same size as that which existed before marriage.
This is done to create the illusion of virginity, since a tight
vaginal opening is culturally perceived as more pleasurable to the
man. Because of the extent of both the initial and repeated cutting and suturing, the physical, sexual and psychological effects of infibulation are greater and longer-lasting than for other types of female genital mutilation.
Although only an estimated 15-20% of all
women who experience genital mutilation undergo type III, in certain
countries such as Djibouti, Somalia and Sudan the proportion is
80-90%. Infibulation is practised on a smaller scale in parts of
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya and Mali, and may occur in
other communities where information is lacking or still
incomplete.
Type IV
Type IV female genital mutilation
encompasses a variety of procedures, most of which are
self-explanatory. Two procedures are described here.
The term "angurya cuts"
describes the scraping of the tissue around the vaginal
opening. "Gishiri
cuts" are posterior (or backward) cuts from the vagina into the
perineum as an attempt to increase the vaginal outlet to relieve
obstructed labour. They often result in vesicovaginal fistulae and
damage to the anal sphincter. There is no mention of removing only the clitoral hood as described by Dr. Nowa Omoigui. While the clitoris is the analogue of the glans penis, it should not be assumed that it is innervated in the same way. The evidence is that the glans clitoris is far more sensitive than the glans penis, and that the nearest analogue to the clitoris in sensitivity is the male foreskin. |
Among the Bedouins of Israel none of the 37 women examined was mutilated. They all had only small scars on the prepuce of the clitoris and/or the upper 1 cm of the labia minora near the clitoral prepuce. Asali A, Khamaysi N, Aburabia Y, Letzer S, Halihal B, Sadovsky M, et al. Upon physical examination of the other group, Ethiopian Jews, which resides now in Israel and performed female genital mutilation in Ethiopia, 63% of the women, who all claimed to have been circumcised, did not even have a scar! 20% had scars, in 7%, one square centimeter of the labia minora was removed from beneath the clitoris and only 10% demonstrated a real and severe form of female genital mutilation, total amputation of the clitoris. Grisaru N, Letzer S, Belmaker RH. This does not speak about the severity of FGM in any other community, and it does not in any way mitigate the human rights abuse of FGM. |
Related pages:
Back to the Intactivism index page.