Talk:Female Genital Mutilation

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

That word

Using that word and not defining it will only cause unmarried users to go searching for more information using Yahoo. This may lead to all sorts of inappropriate behavior. Why not just leave the word off? If There was a page about "liver mutilation", I would just accept it on face value. If it mentioned certain parts of the liver, I would be tempted to investigate more. BHarlan 13:43, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

medical terms used in a medical manner are not "sexualized". and to suggest somehow that this will make "unmarried persons" run off and look it up is seriously flawed. Why not create a medical related page, here, that explains what "that word" is, and what it means in a medical sense. For goodness sake, we are conservative, but that doesn't mean we should hide from important world discussions or educate ourselves about what important issues abound.--JeanJacques 13:47, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I see no reason why there shouldn't be an encyclopedia entry for the clitoris. Sideways 13:49, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I would propose to email something to Andy about a proposed entry. I'm using email incase he finds what I write to be inappropriate. Thanks.--JeanJacques 13:50, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
The page is currently locked from being created, but a sysop could unlock it if there approval for this. I can't see it being a problem as long as the article is kept succinct & scientific. Sideways 13:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Hopefully this will become a non-issue, because there's nothing improper about using the proper anatomical name for a body part in an informative context. This article is about ritual mutilation, and when we conspicuously omit what is being mutilated then we've raised more questions than we've answered. Aschlafly doesn't talk about the "Abortion/female-gland cancer link", for example. --DinsdaleP 13:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

If you can't see the qualitative difference between having a page on an organ used for feeding infants and one reserved for use in the marital bed, well . . . I just think this encyclopedia is supposed to be "family friendly". There are many "informative" things that don't belong in a family friendly encyclopedia.

I'm trying very hard to be nice about this, but this page is being overrun by liberals. BHarlan 13:57, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't trying to offend or mock, BHarlan. The human body is a thing of wonder, and parts of it like the one in question have a proper purpose in that design. This article is about the ritual mutilation of that part to thwart a purpose that we are born to experience in a proper context. I don't think this is improper to discuss, and even the Bible mentions circumcision, so in the right context it's still okay for a family-friendly resource. A last thought - if we don't talk about things like this here, where do you want kids to go instead? We can duck from the challenge, or rise to it and offer a family-friendly option this project was intended to --DinsdaleP 14:31, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Maybe young people should talk to their parents, ministers, or perhaps doctors. If they are still interested, when they are old enough, they can go to medical or nursing school. Finally, it is not the case that every child must have all knowledge. I would wager that all but a very few unlucky American kids do not benefit from knowing the gruesome details of FGM.
I think it's clear this is a matter of scale, since even liberals like youself wouldn't want to put up an FGM instruction manual here, even though it would be "informative".
I did not and do not think you were mocking. I think you merely haven't thought through all the consequences of liberalism in this case. I will not speculate on the causes liberalism in general. BHarlan 14:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
BHarlan, nobody is proposing any kind of instructional content here; & please don't throw around accusations of liberalism as it is not a productive way to discuss article content. This is not a political issue & you cannot judge other editors' political beliefs based on it.
The reasons young people often do not wish to talk to their parents or priest about sexual issues, puberty or genitals are primarily due to embarrassment. They may look for information on the internet instead. Which would you rather: that they can find some concise factual information on Conservapedia (about the clitoris for example, or the penis), or that - because they can't find the information on Conservapedia - they try searching with these words on Google instead? Sideways 17:10, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
The article has been rewritten in a family-friendly way, so ther ought to be no need for furthjer argument. The word that Sideways mentions isn't really suitable for a resource aimed at homeschoolers rather than adults. Bugler 17:38, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
OK, now this article is less than useless. "FMG is a thing that is a thing which sometimes is done in the Arab world". huh? So is it beheading? Or maybe it's making women live under the Burka. Seriously, if this is what you are going to say, you aught to just delete the page. It's worse than useless like this, and it *will* make readers go off site to find out what you are talking about. Again, controlling information is far better than simply sticking your head in the sand. Choose your words as a biology text book would, and yes, it is appropriate for home schoolers. we are not dumb you know, just cause we are home schooled. we really are bright, curious, insightful and know how to read, write, and use the internet. Ask any of the girl's in Andy's class and they will tell you they have heard of FMG, just because it's an important part of our world today, and of the role of woman in family and child bearing.--JeanJacques 17:55, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
OK, Rousseau (yes, you may think you're spoofing us, but we know more than you think), we have no place for your 'let the kids see everything, even though it will traumatise them' views. The words and concepts described were not suitable, not family friendly, and they will not appear. this is not a reource for adults only, and the requirements of our youth are paramount. Any deviation from this will be appropriately dealt with. Bugler 17:59, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
It's Nguyen, actually. --JeanJacques 18:27, 23 October 2008 (EDT)