Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Artikellemma Beschneidung/Verstümmelung weiblicher Genitalien/Belege für den Vorschlag

Belegübersicht

Die Untersuchung der Begriffsverwendung von 1993[1] (Grundlage der Empfehlung des Schiedsgerichts von 2008) ist veraltet, da eine breitere europäische Öffentlichkeit erst infolge des Hosken-Reports von 1993 [2] auf das Thema aufmerksam wurde. Wegen des Aktualitätsanspruchs der Wikipedia soll die Entwicklung der Begrifflichkeiten in der neueren Fachliteratur und im Sprachgebrauch betrachtet werden.

Laut Wikipedia:NK richtet sich "[d]er Artikeltitel [...] nach objektiven Gegebenheiten außerhalb der Wikipedia (allgemeine Gebräuchlichkeit, verbindliche amtliche Bezeichnungen, anerkannte Fachterminologie usw.)":

Allgemeiner Sprachgebrauch

Den allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch messen zu wollen, ist schwierig. Eventuell kann man dazu Google heranziehen. Dabei erhält man beispielsweise folgende Ergebnisse:

"Beschneidung Frau OR Mädchen OR Weibliche" --> 1.040.000 Google-Treffer

"Verstümmelung Frau OR Mädchen OR Weibliche" --> 963.000 Google-Treffer

"Beschneidung weiblicher Genitalien" -> 34.000 Google-Treffer

"Verstümmelung weiblicher Genitalien" -> 140.000 Google-Treffer

"Mädchenbeschneidung" -> 27.800 Google-Treffer
"Genitalverstümmelung" -> 224.000 Google-Treffer

"Weibliche Beschneidung" -> 24.200 Google-Treffer

Zum Verständnis: Hier tauchen englische Abkürzungen auf, weil sie in der Fachliteratur (englischsprachig wie deutsch) ebenfalls verwendet werden: „Female Genital Mutilation“ (FGM) ~ Verstümmelung weiblicher Genitalien „Female Genital Cutting“ (FGC) ~ Beschneidung weiblicher Genitalien „Female Circumcision“ (FC) ~ Weibliche Zirkumzision (ein im Deutschen ungebräuchlicher Begriff) Im englischsprachigen Wikipediaartikel werden diese Begriffe und ihre Verwendung übersichtlich erklärt.

Fachterminologie

Die Terminologie für FGM / FC / FGC wird auch in der Fachliteratur sehr unterschiedlich verwendet. Die meisten Autoren erwähnen in ihren Aufsätzen und Monografien die Vielfalt der Bezeichnungen und wählen (manchmal der Einfachheit halber, manchmal aus Überzeugung) eine aus, die im Text dann vorrangig benutzt wird. „Female Genital Cutting“ (FGC) ist im Englischen bereits eine Kompromissbezeichnung, die sich von "Female Circumcision“ (FC) unterscheiden soll, da hierdurch eine Entsprechung der männlichen Beschneidung suggeriert wird. Einige Autoren bevorzugen die Begriffe FC oder FMC mit der Begründung, dass sie sachlicher seien. Andere präferieren „Verstümmelung“, weil „Beschneidung“ sachlich/medizinisch falsch oder beschönigend sei.^[1]^[2]^[3] R. Elise B. Johansen weist darauf hin, dass es zwei Herangehensweisen in der Forschung gibt: In medizinischen und feministischen Fachzeitschriften interessieren die sexuellen und gesundheitlichen Folgen; in der Anthropologie kulturelle Zusammenhänge.^[4]

Einige neueste Publikationen (der letzten 2-3 Jahre) verweisen teilweise auf die entbrannte Diskussionen um die Benennung und verwenden dann einen Kompromiss aus beiden Begriffen, z.B. FGM/C^[5] oder FC/FGM^[6]

Häufiger zitiert bei Fragen, die die Bezeichnung betreffen, werden die Autorinnen Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer und Ellen Gruenbaum:

Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer betont in ihrem Aufsatz die Gefahren der Praxis und geht auch auf die Begriffsdebatte ein. Sie erklärt zunächst die traditionellen Benennungen und konstatiert dann eine Schwierigkeit bei der Übersetzung ins Englische. Keiner der etablierten Begriffe sei wertungsfrei. Sie entscheidet sich dann für den Begriff „Female Genital Surgeries“ im Plural, also für eine Alternative.^[7]

Ellen Gruenbaum ist Anthropologin mit Gender-Schwerpunkt und Verfechterin eines kulturellen Verständnisses. Sie hat in ihrem Buch „The Female Circumcision Controversy. An Anthrophological Perspective“ von 2001 das gesamte Phänomen mitsamt Deutungsdebatte aufgearbeitet. In der Einleitung geht sie auf den Streit um den Begriff ein. Sie wägt darin Vor- und Nachteile verschiedener Begriffe ab und erkennt, dass es keinen wertfreien Begriff gibt. Am Ende erklärt sie, dass sie den Begriff „female circumcision“ verwenden wird, sich seiner Unzureichbarkeit aber vollstens bewusst ist.^[8]

Amtliche Stellen, die den Verstümmelungsbegriff verwenden (Auswahl)

Bundesregierung: "Genitalverstümmelung"2011 2009 2008

Bundesrat: "Genitalverstümmelung bei Frauen"[[3] 2009]

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung: "Weibliche Genitalverstümmelung"[4][5][6]

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit: "Genitalverstümmelung" 2011

WHO: "Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C)"2008

Einzelnachweise

↑ Kerstin Krása: Human rights for women: the ethical and legal discussion about Female Genital Mutilation in Germany in comparison with other Western European countries. In: Med Health Care and Philos (2010) 13, S. 269–278: “In medical literature, two different terms are used, that is female circumcision (FC) and female genital mutilation (FGM). African activists achieved the application of the latter term in politics to stress that FGM cannot be compared with the removal of the prepuce of boys. The only comparable procedure would be a mild form of the ‘‘Clitoridectomy’’, where only the prepuce is removed. But in conversation with genitally mutilated women, the term Female Circumcision should always be applied to avoid degrading these women as ‘‘mutilated’’. In the following article, I am going to use the term FGM.”
↑ L. A. Briggs: Male and Female Viewpoints on Female Circumcision in Ekpeye, Rivers State, Nigeria. In: African Journal of Reproductive Health / La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive, Band 6, 3, Dezember 2002, S. 44-52: “The traditional operations that involve cutting away parts of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genitals, whether for cultural or any other non-therapeutic reason, is called fe-male circumcision (FC).1 The World Health Or-ganization (WHO) and advocates of its eradication now refer to the operation as female genital mutila-tion (FGM), a term that more accurately describes the consequences of the procedure. In this paper, the terms FC and FGM are'used interchangeably depending on the perception of participants but both mean the same. We have, however, adopted the term FGM since this is a scholarly paper.”
↑ Petra Schnuell: Gritt Richter, Claudia Piccolantonio, Adressing Female Genital Mutilation in Germany. Work of the Women’s Rights Organization Terre des Femmes and the Situation in Germany. in: George C. Denniston, Marilyn Fayre Milos, Franco Viviani, Frederick M. Hodges, Pia Grassivaro Gallo, Bodily Integrity and the Politics of Circumcision. Culture, Controversy, and Change, 2006.
↑ - R. Elise B. Johansen: Pain as a Counterpoint to Culture: Toward an Analysis of Pain Associated with Infibulationamong Somali Immigrants in Norway. In: Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), S. 312-340: "Infibulation is often described as a practice with profound cultural meaning and importance related to basic cultural values attached, for example, to gender, sexuality, morals, beauty, lineage, and fertility. Nonetheless, most women who have experienced the operation associate it with extreme pain and health complications. Research on the practice, however, seldom considers both of these aspects but, rather, focuses on one or the other. Thus, in cultural anthropology, the focus of attention has been on cultural meanings, whereas medical and feminist research has focused on medical complications, with pain included on a "laundry list" of such sequelae (Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:15). This article investigates the "empty space" left largely unexplored between bodily pain as nerve impulses, on the one hand, as is the approach in medical research, and symbolism, on the other hand, as tends to be the focus of anthropologists.”
↑ Amel Fahmy, Mawaheb T. El-Mouelhy, Ahmed R Ragab: Female genital mutilation/cutting and issues of sexuality in Egypt. In: Reproductive Health Matters 2010, 18, 36, S. 181–190.
↑ Elena Jirovsky: Views of women and men in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, on three forms of female genital modification. In: Reproductive Health Matters 2010, 18, 35, S. 84–93: “FC/FGM is the complete or partial excision of the external female genitals for socio-cultural reasons. The term mutilation is condemnatory and used in order to avoid the impression that female circumcision can be regarded as equivalent to male circumcision in its health-related and social consequences. The term female circumcision is used to stress its socio-cultural meaning. Another commonly used term is female genital cutting, as an attempt to be solely descriptive. In this paper I use excision (as a technical term), and female circumcision and female genital mutilation (FC/FGM) in order to include local meanings and the judgemental connotations of mutilation. I do this to illustrate the existing differences in understanding and the large gap in perceptions of the practice. I use the neutral term genital modification for both FC/FGM and female genital cosmetic surgery throughout. Female genital cosmetic surgery as performed in the Western context is not practised in Burkina Faso.”
↑ Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer: Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. In: Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Band 13, 1, März, 1999, S. 79-106.
↑ Ellen Gruenbaum: The Female Circumcision Controversy. An Anthropological Perspective. Philadelphia 2001.

[1] Kerstin Krása: Human rights for women: the ethical and legal discussion about Female Genital Mutilation in Germany in comparison with other Western European countries. In: Med Health Care and Philos (2010) 13, S. 269–278: “In medical literature, two different terms are used, that is female circumcision (FC) and female genital mutilation (FGM). African activists achieved the application of the latter term in politics to stress that FGM cannot be compared with the removal of the prepuce of boys. The only comparable procedure would be a mild form of the ‘‘Clitoridectomy’’, where only the prepuce is removed. But in conversation with genitally mutilated women, the term Female Circumcision should always be applied to avoid degrading these women as ‘‘mutilated’’. In the following article, I am going to use the term FGM.”

[2] L. A. Briggs: Male and Female Viewpoints on Female Circumcision in Ekpeye, Rivers State, Nigeria. In: African Journal of Reproductive Health / La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive, Band 6, 3, Dezember 2002, S. 44-52: “The traditional operations that involve cutting away parts of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genitals, whether for cultural or any other non-therapeutic reason, is called fe-male circumcision (FC).1 The World Health Or-ganization (WHO) and advocates of its eradication now refer to the operation as female genital mutila-tion (FGM), a term that more accurately describes the consequences of the procedure. In this paper, the terms FC and FGM are'used interchangeably depending on the perception of participants but both mean the same. We have, however, adopted the term FGM since this is a scholarly paper.”

[3] Petra Schnuell: Gritt Richter, Claudia Piccolantonio, Adressing Female Genital Mutilation in Germany. Work of the Women’s Rights Organization Terre des Femmes and the Situation in Germany. in: George C. Denniston, Marilyn Fayre Milos, Franco Viviani, Frederick M. Hodges, Pia Grassivaro Gallo, Bodily Integrity and the Politics of Circumcision. Culture, Controversy, and Change, 2006.

[4] - R. Elise B. Johansen: Pain as a Counterpoint to Culture: Toward an Analysis of Pain Associated with Infibulationamong Somali Immigrants in Norway. In: Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), S. 312-340: "Infibulation is often described as a practice with profound cultural meaning and importance related to basic cultural values attached, for example, to gender, sexuality, morals, beauty, lineage, and fertility. Nonetheless, most women who have experienced the operation associate it with extreme pain and health complications. Research on the practice, however, seldom considers both of these aspects but, rather, focuses on one or the other. Thus, in cultural anthropology, the focus of attention has been on cultural meanings, whereas medical and feminist research has focused on medical complications, with pain included on a "laundry list" of such sequelae (Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:15). This article investigates the "empty space" left largely unexplored between bodily pain as nerve impulses, on the one hand, as is the approach in medical research, and symbolism, on the other hand, as tends to be the focus of anthropologists.”

[5] Amel Fahmy, Mawaheb T. El-Mouelhy, Ahmed R Ragab: Female genital mutilation/cutting and issues of sexuality in Egypt. In: Reproductive Health Matters 2010, 18, 36, S. 181–190.

[6] Elena Jirovsky: Views of women and men in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, on three forms of female genital modification. In: Reproductive Health Matters 2010, 18, 35, S. 84–93: “FC/FGM is the complete or partial excision of the external female genitals for socio-cultural reasons. The term mutilation is condemnatory and used in order to avoid the impression that female circumcision can be regarded as equivalent to male circumcision in its health-related and social consequences. The term female circumcision is used to stress its socio-cultural meaning. Another commonly used term is female genital cutting, as an attempt to be solely descriptive. In this paper I use excision (as a technical term), and female circumcision and female genital mutilation (FC/FGM) in order to include local meanings and the judgemental connotations of mutilation. I do this to illustrate the existing differences in understanding and the large gap in perceptions of the practice. I use the neutral term genital modification for both FC/FGM and female genital cosmetic surgery throughout. Female genital cosmetic surgery as performed in the Western context is not practised in Burkina Faso.”

[7] Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer: Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. In: Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Band 13, 1, März, 1999, S. 79-106.

[8] Ellen Gruenbaum: The Female Circumcision Controversy. An Anthropological Perspective. Philadelphia 2001.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]