3 ms·
That's not quite the same thing. A better comparison would be calling FGM 'retarded'. A more apt comparison would be, say, that sex slavery is so 'gringo' (alth
by logn 14y ago
That's not quite the same thing. A better comparison would be calling FGM 'retarded'. A more apt comparison would be, say, that sex slavery is so 'gringo' (although gringo doesn't really have a negative definition so it's not the best analogy).
Anyhow, I don't truly care one way or another. I'm just saying I see where Amnesty is coming from. Generally I don't modify my language until there's a group specifically offended. That might not even be the case here and I might not mind offending FGM practitioners. But Amnesty is not trying to dehumanize people, because doing so in general leads to worse treatment of people.
- omonra 14y agoI think your mistake is to suppose that we use the adjective 'barbaric' to somehow demean or dehumanize its practitioners. Ie - because they are black/brown/muslim that we allow ourselves to use this language. That's 100% wrong (and is well addressed in the OP). Barbaric refers to the act itself. If Hungarians or Swedes decide to chop their girls' labia off, I will call that barbaric. And if it offends someone - I don't give a flying fuck. Just like we do not care if slave-owners are offended because we consider their practice barbaric.