To cut, or not to cut.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I'm am not advocating for or against circumcision, but I think some realism has to be inserted into this thread, as well as a few facts.

There is no way to equate female mutilation with male circumcision.
None at all.

This is not an insertion of realism or fact; it is opinion. There is a simple way to equate female circumcision (mutilation) with male circumcision (mutilation). I have just done so. Loading one surgical procedure with an emotive term is akin to "begging the question". Mutilation needs to be defined. There are people who view tattoos as mutilation, whilst others consider them aesthetically pleasing adornment. The term is subjective, as was your initial assertion.

There is a lot of talk about choices and surgery and pain. I agree with choices with regards to cosmetic things, but in reality we are talking about a bit of nearly dead skin with few nerve endings. Very little of the skin (if any) is actually excised, and most of it is just displaced.

What does "nearly dead" mean? The foreskin has a healthy blood supply (otherwise it would atrophy and fall off) with quite sufficient nerve endings, thank you (I know. I have had the unhappy experience of catching my foreskin in my fly zip...).

It is far more comparable to suturing a cut than it is to female mutilation.

Suturing is repairing. Male (penile) mutilation (See what I did there?) is the cosmetic alteration of the male genitalia. As such, it has much more in common with female (clitoral) mutilation than suturing.

Babies that small are far from fully developed in many areas, and memory of pain does not exist for them. Children 2 years of age have no concept of sharing. It just isn't something that the brain is capable of at that age. Nor is a newborn capable of remembering any thing shortly after birth.

Remembering, or having no memory of pain is hardly a criterian for the inflicting of pain. Simply because a baby fails to remember an act is no justification for that act. If such was the case, the sexual abuse of very young infants (cases of which have, distressingly, become more apparent in the UK recently, by women and men) would not be an issue, which would be a perverse judgement!

Choice is another matter, but in all honesty we are talking about skin being forward or backward. It isn't akin to any type of mutilation, and the sensitivity issue is way overblown. I won't go into personal details, but being circumsized is not a huge deal at all, and actually may be a blessing.

Again, you state it is not mutilation, without explaining why it is not mutilation. You need to define what is mutilation. And you feeling that being circumcised is no deal at all is fine. For you. However, your opinion on this does not, by default, entail that the opinion of others will concur, and fails to justify the withdrawal of choice and consent for others. The ear lobe can be large or non-existent. Would it be justifiable for lobed babies to have their earlobes removed for cosmetic reasons? I would view such actions as assault and mutilation. Wouldn't you?


ETA Thanks, nerdanel. That link is much appreciated, to a fascinating discussion.

[JewelSong]

Would it be justifiable for lobed babies to have their earlobes removed for cosmetic reasons?

If this had been a cultural norm for thousands of years, probably yes.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Would it be justifiable for lobed babies to have their earlobes removed for cosmetic reasons?

If this had been a cultural norm for thousands of years, probably yes.

Why? Female circumcision has a cultural history dating back to Ancient Egypt; does this history accord that practice legitimacy?

[Lidless]

For women, forced removal of (some of) the labia, or even the hood of the clitoris for cosmetic or cultural reasons must be OK if you are OK with male circumcision. No lasting damage, no memory of pain. Of course, it's only OK on babies, just not older people.

Removal of the clitoris is not OK, for obvious reasons.

Alas both fall under the heading of 'female circumcision' / 'female genital mutilation' and possibly there has been some confusion in this thread as to that wide-sweeping term.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

For women, forced removal of (some of) the labia, or even the hood of the clitoris for cosmetic or cultural reasons must be OK if you are OK with male circumcision. No lasting damage, no memory of pain. Of course, it's only OK on babies, just not older people.

Removal of the clitoris is not OK, for obvious reasons.

Alas both fall under the heading of 'female circumcision' / 'female genital mutilation' and possibly there has been some confusion in this thread as to that wide-sweeping term.

Again, what are the obvious reasons that removal of the clitoris is "not OK"?

[JewelSong]

Why? Female circumcision has a cultural history dating back to Ancient Egypt; does this history accord that practice legitimacy?

I am not trying to play Devil's advocate here. I just want to point out that cultural norms are not easily dislodged and usually change over time.

Is female "circumcision" legitimate? Well, *I* surely don't think so. But I find many practices of other cultures abhorrent or silly as well. What gives ME the right to decide for another culture what they should or should not do?

(Maybe I am playing Devil's advocate...)

Chinese girls had their feet bound to make their feet sexually appealing to men. This was practiced for almost 1,000 years. It was a cultural norm - the higher up in stature you were, the tinier and more deformed your feet were supposed to be. We find this disgusting now and as far as I know, it is no longer practiced anywhere in China. But it took 1,000 years for the Chinese to change it. And it changed slowly.

Jewish and Muslim boys have been circumcised for almost 5,000 years. Other cultures also have this as a common, required practice. A group of people who are NOT part of that culture coming in and shouting about mutilation is probably not the best way to change the practice. It must be changed from the inside out.

From what I have read, the practice of female genital mutilation IS slowly being discarded. It is considered "old-fashioned" and barbaric even in places where it used to be commonplace 50 years ago. Yes, it still happens and often under protest, but the custom is slowly being discarded.

Male circumcision MAY eventually go this way. It used to be reserved for certain religious groups...and then in the 1950s, it became common for all baby boys in the USA. It was thought that is prevented infection and increased cleanliness. In other words, there was a medical reason for the increase.

Now, the medical reasons are doubtful (although, as pointed out, there are still some reasons beyond the cosmetic for it.) It is no longer "expected" that a baby boy will be circumcised if he is not Jewish or Muslim. I expect that eventually, parents will again opt out of this procedure unless their religion proscribes it.

And I don't see Jewish or Muslim parents opting out anytime soon. This is what the scripture commands:

Gen 17: 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Edited to fix quotes.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Too many questions are decided in terms of black or white, either/or. It makes for doctrinaire decisions based on the winning ideology of the moment.
I see this question in terms of degree. One procedure is minor, not resented by the majority of recipients and may have statistically disease reducing benefits.
The other is major, statistically health threatening, cruel and very widely resented by the victims.
The point is not whether both are invasive treatments of a child's body but that one is relatively benign and the other is relatively malign.
As it seems de rigueur to state one's experience or otherwise in these matters, I am circumsized. It was done when I was a baby but the reason was never explained to me. It was a medical fashion perhaps at the time. I have never had any issues over the matter and when I see other men I just accept it as part of the variety of life.
If people want to continue circumsizing I have no problem with the practice. It's one of those personal decisions that parents make all the time. I certainly think any practitioner needs a thoroughly modern medically adequate licence to practice.

[axordil]

I think most orthodontia is more traumatic, of equally dubious medical necessity, has a raft of possible complications, happens when a kid DOES remember it, and a lot more expensive to boot. It's (most often) done solely to conform to a cultural cosmetic expectation too.

*Waits for SF to ban braces.*

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I do think that male genital multiation and femail genital mutliation are both genital mutilation. Mind, not all female circumcisions are the same. Some go much farther than others, and some are very nearly comparable.

And they should be equally forbidden to perform on children, no ifs, ands, or buts beyond an actual doctor saying it is actually medically necessary (a very rare event).

Saying there is "no cultural malice" involved in male genital mutilation is an interesting one, because it is the one version of genital mutilation that is accepted in our culture and therefore there is no malice from our point of view.

The biggest point is the irreversibility of this. While there are techniques that can restore appearance, nothing can actually restore a foreskin.

Unlike the happy meal ban, this is an entirely justified use of the government - to protect people from harm.

[Lidless]

GBG,

There is a little known fact among men that the clitoris is a very important part of a woman's body. I only just found out because I looked it up on Wikipedia.

[nerdanel]

I think it would be useful at this point - in considering any analogy between female genital mutilation and male circumcision - to consider exactly what female genital mutilation is. Needless to say, the descriptions below may be uncomfortable to read; please skip the rest of this post if you would prefer not to consider what is involved in FGM.

The World Health Organization and several other UN agencies issued a very helpful interagency report on 2008 on this topic, "Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation." You can read it here.

The report outlines the four recognized types of FGM:

Type I: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).
Type II: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision).
Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation).
Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

The report states that, by current estimates, 90 percent of FGM is collectively Types I, II, and IV, and Type III is 10 percent. Between 100-140 million girls and women have experienced one of the first three types of FGM (WHO estimate). Currently, 91.5 million African women have been mutilated, and 3 million girls are at risk of having the procedure performed on them each year. Types I-III have been documented in 28 African countries, plus parts of Asia and the Middle East.

[nerdanel]

It is also necessary to consider the consequences of female genital mutilation (source: pages 33-34 of the above link; to get the meta-sources they're citing, see the link - everything below is heavily footnoted in the original). To be persuasive, those who insist there is a valid analogy between male circumcision and female genital mutilation need to demonstrate consequences of male circumcision that are remotely comparable to the below.

(The disclaimer to skip this post if you are uncomfortable applies with greater force to this post than the previous one. I'll make it easy - just don't read the shaded text. Exception - anyone who thinks that FGM and male circumcision are analogous. You guys don't get to skip this post. Ghân - this post should help to answer the question, "What are the obvious reasons that removal of the clitoris is not okay?")

Immediate risks of health complications from Types I, II and III

Severe pain: Cutting the nerve ends and sensitive genital tissue causes extreme pain. Proper anaesthesia is rarely used and, when used,
not always effective. The healing period is also painful. Type III female genital mutilation is a more extensive procedure of longer duration (15-20
minutes), hence the intensity and duration of pain are more extensive. The healing period is extended and intensified accordingly.

Shock can be caused by pain and/or haemorrhage. Excessive bleeding (haemorrhage) and septic shock have been documented.

Difficulty in passing urine, and also passing of faeces, can occur due to swelling, oedema and pain.

Infections may spread after the use of contaminated instruments (e.g. use of same instruments in multiple genital mutilation operations), and during the healing period.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): Use of the same surgical instrument without sterilization could increase the risk for transmission of HIV between girls who undergo female genital mutilation together. In one study an indirect association was found, but no direct association has been documented, perhaps because of the rarity of mass genital cutting with the same instrument, and the low HIV prevalence among girls of the age at which the procedure is performed.

Death can be caused by haemorrhage or infections, including tetanus and shock.

Psychological consequences: The pain, shock and the use of physical force by those performing the procedure are mentioned as reasons why many women describe female genital mutilation as a traumatic event.

Unintended labia fusion: Several studies have found that, in some cases, what was intended as a Type II female genital mutilation may, due to
labia adhesion, result in a Type III female genital mutilation.

Repeated female genital mutilation appears to be quite frequent in Type III female genital mutilation, usually due to unsuccessful healing.

Long-term Health Risks from Types I, II, and III

Pain: Chronic pain can be due to trapped or unprotected nerve endings.

Infections: Dermoid cysts, abscesses and genital ulcers can develop, with superficial loss of tissue. Chronic pelvic infections can cause chronic back
and pelvic pain. Urinary tract infections can ascend to the kidneys, potentially resulting in renal failure, septicaemia and death. An increased
risk for repeated urinary tract infections is well documented in both girls and adult women.

Keloid: Excessive scar tissue may form at the site of the cutting.

Reproductive tract infections and sexually transmitted infections: An increased frequency of certain genital infections, including bacterial
vaginosis has been documented. Some studies have documented an increased risk for genital herpes, but no association has been found with
other sexually transmitted infections.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): An increased risk for bleeding during intercourse, which is often the case when defibulation is
necessary (Type III), may increase the risk for HIV transmission. The increased prevalence of herpes in women subjected to female genital mutilation may also increase the risk for HIV infection, as genital herpes is a risk factor in the transmission of HIV.

Quality of sexual life: Removal of, or damage to highly sensitive genital tissue, especially the clitoris, may affect sexual sensitivity and lead to sexual problems, such as decreased sexual pleasure and pain during sex. Scar formation, pain and traumatic memories associated with the procedure can also lead to such problems.

Birth complications: The incidences of caesarean section and postpartum haemorrhage are substantially increased, in addition to increased tearing and recourse to episiotomies. The risks increase with the severity of the female genital mutilation. Obstetric fistula is a complication of prolonged and obstructed labour, and hence may be a secondary result of birth complications caused by female genital mutilation. Studies investigating
a possible association between female genital mutilation and obstetric fistulas are under way.

Danger to the newborn: Higher death rates and reduced Apgar scores have been found, the severity increasing with the severity of female
genital mutilation.

Psychological consequences: Some studies have shown an increased likelihood of fear of sexual intercourse, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and memory loss. The cultural significance of the practice might not protect against psychological complications.

Finally, additional risks specific to Type III:

Later surgery: Infibulations must be opened (defibulation) later in life to enable penetration during sexual intercourse and for childbirth. In some countries it is usual to follow this by re-closure (reinfibulation), and hence the need for repeated defibulation later. Re-closure is also
reportedly done on other occasions.

Urinary and menstrual problems: Slow and painful menstruation and urination can result from the near-complete sealing off of the vagina
and urethra. Haematocolpus may need surgical intervention. Dribbling of urine is common in infibulated women, probably due to both difficulties
in emptying the bladder and stagnation of urine under the hood of scar tissue.

Painful sexual intercourse: As the infibulation must be opened up either surgically or through penetrative sex, sexual intercourse is frequently
painful during the first few weeks after sexual initiation. The male partner can also experience pain and complications.

Infertility: The association between female genital mutilation and infertility is due mainly to cutting of the labia majora, as evidence suggests that the more tissue that is removed, the higher the risk for
infection.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Would it be correct to draw the conclusion that Type IV procedures are as acceptable as male genital mutilation (circumcision)?

[nerdanel]

Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

No, except maybe pricking. Let's try this - find me one of the men here (or any man anywhere) who mentioned that they were circumcised who would've seen it as equivalent if their external genitals were scraped off or burned off. Any takers?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I think such a survey can only be relevant if an accompanying survey of women who have undergone female genital mutilation is undertaken.

Labial removal, in which the clitoris remains intact, is included as Type IV FGM. Is this to be condoned, if performed on a baby girl? This would seem to be equivalent to MGM performed on a baby boy, would it not?

[nerdanel]

I've made my point: I see no analogy between FGM (the three dominant forms) and male circumcision. I've substantiated that point with evidence of the medical consequences of the three dominant forms.

If you want to make the point that some types of Type IV FGM can be equivalent to male circumcision, I'll need you to do some of the lifting. It would be helpful for me to see statistics on what percentage of Type IV FGM are labial removals, and information on what the medical and psychological side effects of infant labial removals are. In addition, it would be helpful to know an estimate of how many infant labial removals are occurring (as opposed to FGM on girls and women). Your analogy won't be much use if it's made to a fairly non-existent practice, and I'm not sure whether that's true one way or the other. It's your argument, so you need to substantiate it. Any of the above information would help me to evaluate its merits.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Fair enough, nerdanel. It would seem you are unwilling to answer a very simple, specific question; is infant labial removal acceptable? The prevalence of such action is irrelevant to any answer, as frequency is not contained within the framing of the question.

It is, of course, your prerogative not to deign this question with a response. I will answer it. No FGM without consent is acceptable. And no MGM without consent is acceptable.

I have no difficulty being unequivocal.

As a side point; the collation of the figures in the UN study are poorly presented. There is insufficient breakdown of Type I, II, and III FGMs, and the conclusions reached regarding health effects do not adequately cover secondary factors (such as FGM being more prevalent in poorer environments, in which the degree of poverty is the major contributing factor to ill health). The survey is loaded, with an obvious preordained bias. One that I happen to agree with, but bias nevertheless.

[JewelSong]

is infant labial removal acceptable?

No. Not to me.

But to put this in the same category as removing the foreskin of the penis and blithely call them both "mutilation" and then proclaim that "All mutilation is equally bad" is disingenuous. And wrong. (IMVHO, of course.)

I do not live in such a black and white world and neither do you. It's like those ill-conceived "zero tolerance laws" that result in a kindergarten student being suspended from school for bring in a water pistol.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

is infant labial removal acceptable?

No. Not to me.

But to put this in the same category as removing the foreskin of the penis and blithely call them both "mutilation" and then proclaim that "All mutilation is equally bad" is disingenuous. And wrong. (IMVHO, of course.)

I do not live in such a black and white world and neither do you. It's like those ill-conceived "zero tolerance laws" that result in a kindergarten student being suspended from school for bring in a water pistol.

I can see that you think the two examples are not equivalent, but I cannot see why. How is infant labial removal worse than infant foreskin removal? Both are invasive surgery. Both cause pain. Both are performed without consent. Etc. I really do find it difficult to understand why one should not be treated as mutilation, whilst the other should...

[nerdanel]

What JS said. Also, I was responding to this question:

This would seem to be equivalent to MGM performed on a baby boy, would it not?

...by asking you to provide information that substantiates your contention that labial removal is equivalent to male circumcision. The answer there is that I genuinely don't know, and I need more information to evaluate your contention.

As for the question of whether infant labial removal is acceptable: anyone who has read any of my posts in the thread could probably figure out that my answer is no. I don't agree with any alteration to female genitalia for any reason, except on an adult woman by her consent (e.g., genital piercings). I don't know any other women who feel otherwise.

However, I know many, many adult men who have been circumcised (some as adults, for reasons relating to religious conversion), who feel neutrally-to-positively about the practice. That's why I don't automatically jump from "infant labial removal is unacceptable" to "infant male circumcision is unacceptable" (leaving aside the reality that male circumcision seems to be done routinely with no complications, and you haven't yet shown me medical evidence that the same would be true of labial removal) ... because the overwhelming majority of the affected group doesn't seem to care about it very much. It would be awkward indeed for me, as a woman, to announce to guys who are perfectly happy with their circumcisions that they had been "mutilated" or "violated".

As for the figures in the UN study, I agree that they could be better presented. I'll look forward to reviewing any more adequate studies that you choose to contribute to this thread.