Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Ostroeuropa]

As a non-circumcised male, I don't like or understand the concept. I'd say that while female genital mutilation is much worse, we shouldn't ignore circumcision.

No it isn't.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=357153&p=26336598#p26336598

Never, ever believe what feminists tell you without fact checking first.
It's almost always disingenuous lies.

[Alyakia]

As a non-circumcised male, I don't like or understand the concept. I'd say that while female genital mutilation is much worse, we shouldn't ignore circumcision.

No it isn't.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p26336598

Never, ever believe what feminists tell you without fact checking first.
It's almost always disingenuous lies.

oh cool

despite the fact that everyone in this thread is talking about circumcision and whether it should be considered mutilation, you decided to start talking about worse forms that everyone presumably agrees is mutilation but, again, oddly enough, have no relevance to the dominant cultural practices of the united states.

feminist lies exposed again

[Alyakia]

Yes, circumcision is wrong except for medical reasons. No, it's not as wrong as FGM.

Why not? (Changing that to MGM is not as wrong as FGM.)

you're right. that statement does look a lot worse if you flat out change it to something else!

[AiliailiA]

Circumcision doesn't cover all MGM, and Female Castration is one form of FGM that is often presented as all of it.

Well since you linked back to this, Ostro, let's clear up that we're not talking about castration.

Male castration is the amputation of the testicles, which would make it biologically impossible for the male to reproduce and would also remove the main source of sex hormones.

The female equivalent would be removal of the ovaries.

Neither of those are what we're talking about are they?

[Gauthier]

Maybe because the clitoris is a nerve cluster unlike the foreskin of a penis?

[Gauthier]

No it isn't.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p26336598

Never, ever believe what feminists tell you without fact checking first.
It's almost always disingenuous lies.

oh cool

despite the fact that everyone in this thread is talking about circumcision and whether it should be considered mutilation, you decided to start talking about worse forms that everyone presumably agrees is mutilation but, again, oddly enough, have no relevance to the dominant cultural practices of the united states.

feminist lies exposed again

Ostro is turning into a Giorgio Tsoukalas memepic, but instead of "I'm not saying it was aliens. but it was aliens" it's "I'm not saying it was feminists, but it was feminists."

[Halfblakistan]

I think it's stupid. There's really no good reason for it other than "cosmetics."

[AiliailiA]

Maybe because the clitoris is a nerve cluster unlike the foreskin of a penis?

There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin. Not as many as the clitoris, but it's a quantitative distinction not a qualitative one.

And also, "female genital mutilation" means any modification to the external genitals which isn't medically necessary. The removal of the clitoris is an extreme form of that.

To characterize all FGM as the extreme form is exactly equivalent to characterizing all MGM as the extreme form. "Circumcision is cutting little boys' penises off!" ... does that sound reasonable at all?

[The Alma Mater]

Maybe because the clitoris is a nerve cluster unlike the foreskin of a penis?

There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin. Not as many as the clitoris, but it's a quantitative distinction not a qualitative one.

And also, "female genital mutilation" means any modification to the external genitals which isn't medically necessary. The removal of the clitoris is an extreme form of that.

To characterize all FGM as the extreme form is exactly equivalent to characterizing all MGM as the extreme form. "Circumcision is cutting little boys' penises off!" ... does that sound reasonable at all?

Of course, we could also just assume people are talking about the most common forms of circumcision. Which for women is the removal of the labia and clithood with a razor in a dirty ditch; while for men it is the careful sterile cutting of the foreskin.

[Divitaen]

Maybe because the clitoris is a nerve cluster unlike the foreskin of a penis?

There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin. Not as many as the clitoris, but it's a quantitative distinction not a qualitative one.

And also, "female genital mutilation" means any modification to the external genitals which isn't medically necessary. The removal of the clitoris is an extreme form of that.

To characterize all FGM as the extreme form is exactly equivalent to characterizing all MGM as the extreme form. "Circumcision is cutting little boys' penises off!" ... does that sound reasonable at all?

Both FGM and male circumcision are extreme because it is basically a form of intimate genital cutting on minors who cannot legally consent to the procedure. It is a form of coerced mutilation, no more and no less. It is as extreme as sterilising a baby or imposing gender reassignment surgery on an intersexual baby. There is no such thing as 'moderate' circumcision.

[Alyakia]

Both FGM and male circumcision are extreme because it is basically a form of intimate genital cutting on minors who cannot legally consent to the procedure.

this is true, but...

It is a form of coerced mutilation, no more and no less. It is as extreme as sterilising a baby or imposing gender reassignment surgery on an intersexual baby. There is no such thing as 'moderate' circumcision.

we're being willfully ignorant if we say cutting off part of the foreskin is the same as literal sterilization, which are different, which is why we have separate words for them. this is clue #1 when trying to figure out whether one thing is different from or is as the case may be the same thing as something else or itself. it gets a bit meta.

[Divitaen]

Both FGM and male circumcision are extreme because it is basically a form of intimate genital cutting on minors who cannot legally consent to the procedure.

this is true, but...

It is a form of coerced mutilation, no more and no less. It is as extreme as sterilising a baby or imposing gender reassignment surgery on an intersexual baby. There is no such thing as 'moderate' circumcision.

we're being willfully ignorant if we say cutting off part of the foreskin is the same as literal sterilization, which are different, which is why we have separate words for them. this is clue #1 when trying to figure out whether one thing is different from or is as the case may be the same thing as something else or itself. it gets a bit meta.

I suppose people do exaggerate the issue quite a bit. But I guess what I'm saying is on a principle level, or on the level of medical ethics, male circumcision is as invasive as forced sterilisation.

[Imperializt Russia]

this is true, but...



we're being willfully ignorant if we say cutting off part of the foreskin is the same as literal sterilization, which are different, which is why we have separate words for them. this is clue #1 when trying to figure out whether one thing is different from or is as the case may be the same thing as something else or itself. it gets a bit meta.

I suppose people do exaggerate the issue quite a bit. But I guess what I'm saying is on a principle level, or on the level of medical ethics, male circumcision is as invasive as forced sterilisation.

I would again disagree.
Minor inconvenience - that is, the increased lifetime exposure of the glans to stimuli thus reducing the intensity of sensitivity - is a vastly lower outcome of circumcision than forced sterilisation is.

[The Alma Mater]

I suppose people do exaggerate the issue quite a bit. But I guess what I'm saying is on a principle level, or on the level of medical ethics, male circumcision is as invasive as forced sterilisation.

I would again disagree.
Minor inconvenience - that is, the increased lifetime exposure of the glans to stimuli thus reducing the intensity of sensitivity - is a vastly lower outcome of circumcision than forced sterilisation is.

It is however not the outcome, but the actual act the ethics concern themselves with.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would again disagree.
Minor inconvenience - that is, the increased lifetime exposure of the glans to stimuli thus reducing the intensity of sensitivity - is a vastly lower outcome of circumcision than forced sterilisation is.

It is however not the outcome, but the actual act the ethics concern themselves with.

Since when does the impact of an outcome not play into the ethical concern of an action?

[Divitaen]

I suppose people do exaggerate the issue quite a bit. But I guess what I'm saying is on a principle level, or on the level of medical ethics, male circumcision is as invasive as forced sterilisation.

I would again disagree.
Minor inconvenience - that is, the increased lifetime exposure of the glans to stimuli thus reducing the intensity of sensitivity - is a vastly lower outcome of circumcision than forced sterilisation is.

In principle it is the same though. You are talking about a private and highly intimate part of the human body. Pragmatic consequences aside, you cannot play with or manipulate the private parts of a human being without their explicit consent. To do otherwise is, inherently, demeaning and degrading to a human being. So even though the outcomes are different, the process of sterilisation or circumcision of a baby both involve mutilating the privates of a non-consenting infant.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would again disagree.
Minor inconvenience - that is, the increased lifetime exposure of the glans to stimuli thus reducing the intensity of sensitivity - is a vastly lower outcome of circumcision than forced sterilisation is.

In principle it is the same though. You are talking about a private and highly intimate part of the human body. Pragmatic consequences aside, you cannot play with or manipulate the private parts of a human being without their explicit consent. To do otherwise is, inherently, demeaning and degrading to a human being. So even though the outcomes are different, the process of sterilisation or circumcision of a baby both involve mutilating the privates of a non-consenting infant.

If only reality were actually so painfully black and white.

We are, however, talking about infants. Parties who cannot consent so legally, consent is made on their behalf by certain bodies - were we talking about medical procedure, it would be the parents on advice of a medical professional. In the west, I believe I am right in saying that even a non-medical infant circumcision must be performed by a medical professional, and I'd be happy to correct myself if this is not the case.

[The Alma Mater]

It is however not the outcome, but the actual act the ethics concern themselves with.

Since when does the impact of an outcome not play into the ethical concern of an action?

Oh, quite often.

For example; consider giving a babyboy a blowjob, or have a babygirl lick a grown mans penis until he orgasms.
Assuming there are no STDs involved, there is no actual harm to the baby in both scenarios - or at least vastly less than the removal of the foreskin. Yet we have quite significant jailsentences for this nevertheless.

The act itself is what is deemed wrong; the actual practical impact is considered unimportant.

[Divitaen]

In principle it is the same though. You are talking about a private and highly intimate part of the human body. Pragmatic consequences aside, you cannot play with or manipulate the private parts of a human being without their explicit consent. To do otherwise is, inherently, demeaning and degrading to a human being. So even though the outcomes are different, the process of sterilisation or circumcision of a baby both involve mutilating the privates of a non-consenting infant.

If only reality were actually so painfully black and white.

We are, however, talking about infants. Parties who cannot consent so legally, consent is made on their behalf by certain bodies - were we talking about medical procedure, it would be the parents on advice of a medical professional. In the west, I believe I am right in saying that even a non-medical infant circumcision must be performed by a medical professional, and I'd be happy to correct myself if this is not the case.

Yeah of course it must be done by a medical professional, but that's not the point. The infant still cannot consent, and there is no compelling medical reason to conduct the male circumcision, so in the absence of any medical necessity it is a violation of the infant's basic human dignity to have your genitals manipulated and mutilated without your knowledge or ability to weigh the pros and cons of the operation.

[Alyakia]

In principle it is the same though. You are talking about a private and highly intimate part of the human body. Pragmatic consequences aside, you cannot play with or manipulate the private parts of a human being without their explicit consent. To do otherwise is, inherently, demeaning and degrading to a human being. So even though the outcomes are different, the process of sterilisation or circumcision of a baby both involve mutilating the privates of a non-consenting infant.

If only reality were actually so painfully black and white.

We are, however, talking about infants. Parties who cannot consent so legally, consent is made on their behalf by certain bodies - were we talking about medical procedure, it would be the parents on advice of a medical professional. In the west, I believe I am right in saying that even a non-medical infant circumcision must be performed by a medical professional, and I'd be happy to correct myself if this is not the case.

would we be going in circles if i said parents cannot or should not be allowed to give their kids unnecessary medical procedures because they feel like it? (also doctors with a cultural bias will say it's totally great i guess)

[Imperializt Russia]

Since when does the impact of an outcome not play into the ethical concern of an action?

Oh, quite often.

For example; consider giving a babyboy a blowjob, or have a babygirl lick a growns mans penis until he orgasms.
Assuming there are no STDs involved, there is no actual harm to the baby in both scenarios - or at least vastly less than the removal of the foreskin. Yet we have quite significant jailsentences for this nevertheless.

The act itself is what is deemed wrong; the actual practical impact is considered unimportant.

The act is considered wrong partly for the obvious moral reasons but also because we consider the sexual exploitation of minors, infants especially (which your examples clearly are) to be emotionally damaging and an abuse of the power one has over these minors, infants especially.

[Kar-Esseria]

I know nothing about female circumcision so I won't argue for or against it.

But as far male circumcision, as a man who was circumcised, let me tell you this: Just stop. Let it be. Let people circumcise their kids. It's not becoming eunuchs, it's just a little ring flesh being cut off and from what I've heard it does more good than harm. It is not mutilation any more than piercing your ears.

[Imperializt Russia]

If only reality were actually so painfully black and white.

We are, however, talking about infants. Parties who cannot consent so legally, consent is made on their behalf by certain bodies - were we talking about medical procedure, it would be the parents on advice of a medical professional. In the west, I believe I am right in saying that even a non-medical infant circumcision must be performed by a medical professional, and I'd be happy to correct myself if this is not the case.

would we be going in circles if i said parents cannot or should not be allowed to give their kids unnecessary medical procedures because they feel like it? (also doctors with a cultural bias will say it's totally great i guess)

This is what I was hoping to try and steer this towards eventually.

Most of you here don't have any problem with the process of circumcision. What you have a problem with is the practice of infant circumcision for reasons not explicitly medical.
This does not mean these reasons cannot be used, just that you believe it should not be performed on an infant who cannot consent. The issue being is that the parents are consenting on the infant's behalf.

[Alyakia]

I know nothing about female circumcision so I won't argue for or against it.

But as far male circumcision, as a man who was circumcised, let me tell you this: Just stop. Let it be. Let people circumcise their kids. It's not becoming eunuchs, it's just a little ring flesh being cut off and from what I've heard it does more good than harm. It is not mutilation any more than piercing your ears.

for some reason the countries that do circumcision have a lot of evidence showing it's good and the countries that don't find their evidence inconclusive at best. huh. how weird.

would you be ok with people tattooing their babies?

[Divitaen]

would we be going in circles if i said parents cannot or should not be allowed to give their kids unnecessary medical procedures because they feel like it? (also doctors with a cultural bias will say it's totally great i guess)

This is what I was hoping to try and steer this towards eventually.

Most of you here don't have any problem with the process of circumcision. What you have a problem with is the practice of infant circumcision for reasons not explicitly medical.
This does not mean these reasons cannot be used, just that you believe it should not be performed on an infant who cannot consent. The issue being is that the parents are consenting on the infant's behalf.

And to be fair that is the overwhelming majority of circumstances under which male circumcision occurs. Because of cultural reasons, religious reasons or because of the parents' personal preferences.