Talk:Female Genital Mutilation
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I see no reason why there shouldn't be an encyclopedia entry for the clitoris. Sideways 13:49, 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)
