Now female medical doctors themselves are in courts to legalize it as soon as possible.

Reminds me of the song "legslizaaaaaation,or the ganja herb"

What is FGM? I think it is just one of the body cosmetics...

To me FGM has no beneficial significance. To me, FGM has no sanctions. According to me, it is not sanctioned.

FGM is a cultural practice. It was found in parts of Africa and Arabia...

It is not a must for a woman to undergo FGM. Countries differ over the issue. Some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin.

I welcome the recent tougher legislation and enforcement against FGM. Personally I support banning of this practice, because it is not applicable in the modern world.

I don't know if circumcised woman enjoys sex more or less. But for male it is better if he is circumcised. Scientist have also supported this practice, male circumcision...

cosmetic for whom?

I had missed this until I saw it huko Facebook a.k.a MKZ. First things first. The average IQ of the Kenyan society is quite low if those discussions are anything to go by. The insults that poor doctor has received on Facebook. And all from idiots who didn't even get to hear what she was saying.

The good doctor is arguing for elective FGM for adults who would wish to have it. Her opposers argue kids will suffer from FGM. Clearly, we have a hearing problem in this country.

If we consider circumcision as a form of Male genital mutilation. And that it only exists for cultural and religious reasons. It has no known medical benefit. Before anyone says Aids, please read the literature behind the push by medics to have male circumcision. It was about hygiene. Nothing else. In Europe where circumcision rates are below 20%, they also have the lowest HIV rates. Good hygiene.

Now suppose I went to court and argued that young boys in this country are forced to undergo MGM before they are of majority age where they can make the decision for themselves.

Legally, the doctor's argument is very solid.

I think the best-available evidence: meta-analyses, longitudinal studies, Randomized controlled trials show that circumcision has health benefits in respect of some STDs, UTIs, and especially HIV. Ata kama huku culture and religion are usually the main reasons people practise circumcision, the claim that it has no medical benefit is false. See examples: a meta-analysis on STIs, a randomized controlled trial in South Africa, and a longitudinal study in New Zealand. A study in Kenya has shown circumcision not to have any significant benefit against nonulcerative STIs, but even its results shows that in absolute terms,numbers affected by these STIs were higher in controls than in circumcised group, and that circumcision could lower risk of transmission to partners. You can point us to your literature but ensure that it at least reports its methodology so that we can see how they have conducted their studies.

"In Europe where circumcision rates are below 20%, they also have the lowest HIV rates." This is a very flawed logic because of factors such as higher rates of condom use (as a contraceptive) in Europe compared to Africa that would favour Europe in terms of prevalence rates. A recent study has addressed this issue by comparing reasons why Israel has lower HIV rates compared to France and Netherlands (all these countries have low HIV prevalence). The results are that the lower rate in Israel can be explained significantly by the routine circumcision in Israel. These results are part of the reasons why there has been calls for Europe to develop a policy favouring routine male circumcision.

Does FGM have any benefits? The only studies I can find on FGM are those showing its link to complications during child birth. While a pro-choice argument could be made, the challenge is that most communities practise it on children and through crude methods. Crude methods that were being used for boys have been replaced by medical procedure in many communities. I do not think FGM be provided safely as a medical option without any adverse health effects. It is difficult to support it even as a pro-choice option.

I can't view the pictures for my personal reasons.
They can irreversibly sent my appetite.
Anyway I think cosmetic is saw a as long as it doesn't leave a rough scar.