When it comes to the practice of removing the external genitalia of young girls and women for non-health reasons, the New York Times’ health editor prefers the word “cutting” to “mutilation.”
The use of the term “female genital mutilation” could further divide those who support and those who oppose the practice, Celia Dugger explained recently.
“Female genital mutilation,” which, by the way, is illegal in several countries, is a “culturally loaded” term, she said.
“I began writing about this back in 1996 when I was an immigration reporter on the Metro desk covering the asylum case of Fauziya Kassindja. I decided in the course of reporting that case — especially after a reporting trip to Togo, her home country, and the Ivory Coast — to call it genital cutting rather than mutilation,” Dugger explained this weekend.
She added, “I never minced words in describing exactly what form of cutting was involved, and there are many gradations of severity, and the terrible damage it did, and stayed away from the euphemistic circumcision, but chose to use the less culturally loaded term, genital cutting. There’s a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm.”
On Tuesday, a Times spokesperson sought to defend Dugger’s remarks, arguing that the editor has an excellent record of covering the issue fairly and accurately.
“Celia Dugger’s extensive on-the-ground coverage has brought this damaging and painful practice to the world’s attention and highlighted the efforts of those combating it at the grassroots,” the spokesperson told the Washington Examiner.
“I encourage anyone criticizing the coverage to actually read it. Below are a few links to her coverage going back to 1996,” the person added.
Dugger herself did not respond to the Examiner’s request for comment.
The health editor’s explanation this weekend for why she uses “cutting” versus “mutilation” came in response to a question about the Times’ recent reporting on a Michigan doctor who has been charged with performing female genital mutilation on young girls. The Times reported that the Islamic doctor, who has been charged with a felony, stands accused of performing “genital cutting.”
Some human rights groups don’t see eye-to-eye with Dugger on the issue, and instead see the use of the word “cutting” as a form of whitewashing.
“[Mutilation] establishes a clear distinction from male circumcision,” the United Nations Population Fund said. “Use of the word ‘mutilation’ also emphasizes the gravity of the act and reinforces that the practice is a violation of women’s and girls’ basic human rights.”
Though the Times has used the term “female genital mutilation” in at least six articles this year, each use has come with restrictions, Fox News noted.
The term “female genital mutilation” has appeared twice in the Times in quoted speeches or statements. References to the term have also appeared this year in two opinion columns. Additional references have appeared in stories written and published by global wire services, including the Associated Press and Reuters.
“UNFPA estimates some 200 million women worldwide have been subjected to FGM, and though the procedure is typically practiced in African or Middle Eastern cultures, it’s spreading westward,” Fox reported. “Nearly 6,000 reported cases occurred in Britain from April 2015 to March 2016, according to the Health and Social Care Information Center.”
