Genital Cutting of Children; Rand Paul Gets It Right


As somehow who has spent almost an entire academic career studying the subjugation of women, there is no doubt that female genital cutting is a grave human rights violation. Girls are socialized into believing that they cannot be a full woman or be married unless their genitals are cut in some fashion. The types of cutting range from the fairly innocuous though still painful (nicking the hood of the clitoris as is found in Indonesia) to downright ghastly (excising the clitoris and labia minor, cutting off the end of the labia major and sewing them together, leaving but a Q-tip sized hole for menstrual blood and urine to pass). The WHO, UNWomen, UNICEF, and other entities of global governance have proclaimed these practices a clear violation of the rights of the child--even if the child has been socialized to "want" this mutilation.

That this is a human rights violation of the child is universally acknowledged, even by almost all of the states in which the practice persists. The health consquences of the more extreme forms of FGC are, well, extreme--including possible death at the time of cutting, possible loss of fertility, much higher chance of dying in childbirth, chronic urinary and vaginal infections, etc.

Today Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky--who has an M.D.--questioned the Biden administration's candidate for assistant director of HHS about their support for puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and even gender reassignment surgery--which, frankly, is surgical genital mutilation. The full transcript of the exchange can be found here.

Paul lays out the case very thoroughly, much as Abigail Shrier does in her book Irreversible Damage. I have written about "puberty blockers" in a recent post here; the effects are by no means benign. We are stripping children of full bodily development, such as the full development of their brain and their bones, and we are stripping them of their fertility. And then we mutilate their genitals. In the UK, of course, the recent case of Keira Bell before the high court has led to a prohibition of these things under age 16, and only with a judge's consent over age 16. Paul asks Levine, "The question is a very specific one, should minors be making these momentous decisions?"

Levine, in turn, has memorized a script which they repeat verbatim at least twice about how care of transgender children is complex and they would be delighted to visit with Paul about it if they are confirmed. Paul tells it like it is: "Let it go into the record that the witness refused to answer the question."

I wonder if the Democratic Party understands how deeply many people in their own party feel this is wrong. With the vote in the House of Representatives in favor of the Equality Act (though much closer than many had predicted), many feminists feel the Democratic Party has completely betrayed them and their daughters. I feel that 2022 will be a year when the Democratic Party, having sown the east wind, will reap the whirlwind.