[SUBMITTED] Repeal GA #114

[Calladan]

"Pardon my ignorance," Alexis says while fashioning a fully articulated origami wyvern, "but I'm confused as to why we're not condemning genital mutilation for both sexes. This FGM sounds positively criminal, I'll not take away from that, but circumcision suffers a similar medically dubious basis, despite it being less overtly damaging.

"Not that this means that I would support this repeal, mind you. I'm just curious if the issue has been addressed before."

The reason most people condemn FGM while not condemning circumcision is because the difference between them is sort of like the difference between what happens between the contributions of chicken and the pig when you have eggs and bacon for breakfast, and just as graphic.

[WA Kitty Kops]

FGM, on the other hand, removes the clitoirs. Meaning the woman is unable to derive any pleasure from sexual intercourse. The procedure also forces the woman to expel urin through a hole smaller than the width of a drinking straw.

OOC: Ok, I'm very much not in favour with the procedure, but I think you need to brush up on your anatomy lessons. First of all, you can't remove the whole clitoris without removing much of the internal structures of the pelvic area for women, as the tip of the clitoris (which is removed) is literally just the tip. The organ itself is made of similar tissue as the shaft of the penis, but internally it divides in two "shafts" that encircle the urethra and vagina. It is surmised that the so-called "G-spot" is actually part of this internal structure of clitoris.

Additionally, whether you're male or female, I suggest taking a pencil that's the width of a drinking straw, and trying to stick it into your urethra, to see if the passageway isn't normally much thinner than that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urethra

[Prydania]

Additionally, whether you're male or female, I suggest taking a pencil that's the width of a drinking straw, and trying to stick it into your urethra, to see if the passageway isn't normally much thinner than that!

OOC: I'll pass, but thanks for the suggestion (and anatomy lesson) regardless

[Greater Gilead]

"Well tradition falls into one of two categories. Those traditions that prove harmful and those that prove harmless. We feel strongly in maintaining harmless cultural traditions. We also feel strongly about stamping out the harmful ones."

"More than one major religious group considers male circumcision to be a deeply spiritual and religious tradition. And yes, many groups consider FGM to be the same. The difference is that male circumcision is, as you noted, far less harmful- to the point of being harmless, in the vast majority of cases. Whereas FGM is downright torturous in all circumstances. So while the claims that male circumcision has a medical benefit may be 'dubious' by certain standards? It is ultimately a harmless tradition. Whereas FGM is a very harmful one."

"So yes. Tradition be damned in the case of FGM. It's torturous butchery. Male circumcision, however, is not. While you may oppose it on moral grounds? This delegation would oppose banning it and denying religious groups that hold it to be a holy rite their freedom of worship."

"It is this difference between harmful and harmless tradition that led me to call it a false equivalency. Speaking as a man who had the procedure done at eight days old? I have never felt deformed, butchered, or mutilated. I don't want to get overly personal, but I will just say I have never suffered as a result of it. Whereas girls forced to undergo FGM always suffer."

"Claiming the two are equivalent is either the result of an ill-informed mind or a disingenuous one."

So you want to hold a double standard? I understand that the main religion that includes FGM is Islam, and I completely understand that causes you to be biased.
"This delegation would oppose banning it and denying religious groups that hold it to be a holy rite their freedom of worship." So why not the same for female? You are holding males and females to a different standard here. People keep talking about gender equality, women feel they do not need men to protect them, but that is exactly what you are doing here. IF equality = true, THEN equality = true everywhere, including the genitals. If equality is here, the same protections and/or regulations should be on both male and female circumcision.

"To be honest it is this representative's opinion that all circumcision should be done in a sterile operating environment and executed by a trained surgeon, making the utmost effort in avoiding all kinds of possible sources of contamination, whether by oral or non-sterilised instruments. And of course, with the subject's informed consent."

"I agree whole-heartedly. Is there a resolution about informed consent? The passed resolutions catalogue is rather lengthy and full of repeals of prior resolutions. I fear I might have missed it."

The thing is, (talking about adults here) if you stay in a religion or nation, you give consent to said religion's or nation's customs. And there is always a way out. Somehow. I won't quote here, (because copyright) but direct you to, Offred's monologue the first time you see her in her room, as she mentions the ways out. [WARNING - It's dark]

[Calladan]

"Well tradition falls into one of two categories. Those traditions that prove harmful and those that prove harmless. We feel strongly in maintaining harmless cultural traditions. We also feel strongly about stamping out the harmful ones."

"More than one major religious group considers male circumcision to be a deeply spiritual and religious tradition. And yes, many groups consider FGM to be the same. The difference is that male circumcision is, as you noted, far less harmful- to the point of being harmless, in the vast majority of cases. Whereas FGM is downright torturous in all circumstances. So while the claims that male circumcision has a medical benefit may be 'dubious' by certain standards? It is ultimately a harmless tradition. Whereas FGM is a very harmful one."

"So yes. Tradition be damned in the case of FGM. It's torturous butchery. Male circumcision, however, is not. While you may oppose it on moral grounds? This delegation would oppose banning it and denying religious groups that hold it to be a holy rite their freedom of worship."

"It is this difference between harmful and harmless tradition that led me to call it a false equivalency. Speaking as a man who had the procedure done at eight days old? I have never felt deformed, butchered, or mutilated. I don't want to get overly personal, but I will just say I have never suffered as a result of it. Whereas girls forced to undergo FGM always suffer."

"Claiming the two are equivalent is either the result of an ill-informed mind or a disingenuous one."

So you want to hold a double standard? I understand that the main religion that includes FGM is Islam, and I completely understand that causes you to be biased.
"This delegation would oppose banning it and denying religious groups that hold it to be a holy rite their freedom of worship." So why not the same for female? You are holding males and females to a different standard here. People keep talking about gender equality, women feel they do not need men to protect them, but that is exactly what you are doing here. IF equality = true, THEN equality = true everywhere, including the genitals. If equality is here, the same protections and/or regulations should be on both male and female circumcision.

"I agree whole-heartedly. Is there a resolution about informed consent? The passed resolutions catalogue is rather lengthy and full of repeals of prior resolutions. I fear I might have missed it."

The thing is, (talking about adults here) if you stay in a religion or nation, you give consent to said religion's or nation's customs. And there is always a way out. Somehow. I won't quote here, (because copyright) but direct you to, Offred's monologue the first time you see her in her room, as she mentions the ways out. [WARNING - It's dark]

The thing is, you are not being entirely honest.

The male equivalent of FGM is castration. Literally castration. That is about as close as you can come to a suitable comparison between the two practices.

And I know of no religion that requires males to have their cocks cut off as a part of their religious rites. In fact, I cannot imagine any religion in the world EVER requiring that because almost every religion is run by and for the convenience and pleasure of men, and there is no WAY they would have allowed someone to write in their holy books "And so, when a man reaches the age of adulthood, he must have his willy and his goolies hacked off with a scythe". So while they are quite happy to torture and mutilate women in the name of a divine being, they would NEVER allow it to be done to themselves.

If you want pretend they are equal go ahead, but you are lying to yourself, and to everyone else.

It has been pointed out to me that I may have misdefined castration just a tad.

So here is my corrected post :-

The thing is, you are not being entirely honest.

The male equivalent of FGM is Penectomy. Literally Penectomy. That is about as close as you can come to a suitable comparison between the two practices.

And I know of no religion that requires males to have their cocks cut off as a part of their religious rites. In fact, I cannot imagine any religion in the world EVER requiring that because almost every religion is run by and for the convenience and pleasure of men, and there is no WAY they would have allowed someone to write in their holy books "And so, when a man reaches the age of adulthood, he must have his willy and his goolies hacked off with a scythe". So while they are quite happy to torture and mutilate women in the name of a divine being, they would NEVER allow it to be done to themselves.

If you want pretend they are equal go ahead, but you are lying to yourself, and to everyone else.

[Wrapper]

The male equivalent of FGM is castration. Literally castration.... And I know of no religion that requires males to have their cocks cut off as a part of their religious rites.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Kaboomlandia]

Miller: "Fully opposed. Female genital mutilation has no medical benefit and should remain illegal."

[Calladan]

The male equivalent of FGM is castration. Literally castration.... And I know of no religion that requires males to have their cocks cut off as a part of their religious rites.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Apologies. I fixed it And my point still remains - comparing FGM to circumcision is (ironically in this context) bollocks.

[Greater Gilead]

So you want to hold a double standard? I understand that the main religion that includes FGM is Islam, and I completely understand that causes you to be biased.
"This delegation would oppose banning it and denying religious groups that hold it to be a holy rite their freedom of worship." So why not the same for female? You are holding males and females to a different standard here. People keep talking about gender equality, women feel they do not need men to protect them, but that is exactly what you are doing here. IF equality = true, THEN equality = true everywhere, including the genitals. If equality is here, the same protections and/or regulations should be on both male and female circumcision.

The thing is, (talking about adults here) if you stay in a religion or nation, you give consent to said religion's or nation's customs. And there is always a way out. Somehow. I won't quote here, (because copyright) but direct you to, Offred's monologue the first time you see her in her room, as she mentions the ways out. [WARNING - It's dark]

[strike]The thing is, you are not being entirely honest.
The thing is, you are not being entirely honest.

The male equivalent of FGM is Penectomy. Literally Penectomy. That is about as close as you can come to a suitable comparison between the two practices.

And I know of no religion that requires males to have their cocks cut off as a part of their religious rites. In fact, I cannot imagine any religion in the world EVER requiring that because almost every religion is run by and for the convenience and pleasure of men, and there is no WAY they would have allowed someone to write in their holy books "And so, when a man reaches the age of adulthood, he must have his willy and his goolies hacked off with a scythe". So while they are quite happy to torture and mutilate women in the name of a divine being, they would NEVER allow it to be done to themselves.

If you want pretend they are equal go ahead, but you are lying to yourself, and to everyone else.

That is because the penis is needed for procreation. The clitoris is not. And now you are being sexist by saying men run religion for their convenience. That is not true. The unofficial 'motto' of our church youth group is "All for One, and One for all. (Note capitalization gives it an additional meaning.)

[Wrapper]

That is because the penis is needed for procreation.

No it isn't.

[Greater Gilead]

That is because the penis is needed for procreation.

No it isn't.

Explain.

[Wrapper]

No it isn't.

Explain.

Andrew Wardle.

[Godular]

FGM, on the other hand, removes the clitoirs. Meaning the woman is unable to derive any pleasure from sexual intercourse. The procedure also forces the woman to expel urin through a hole smaller than the width of a drinking straw.

OOC: Ok, I'm very much not in favour with the procedure, but I think you need to brush up on your anatomy lessons. First of all, you can't remove the whole clitoris without removing much of the internal structures of the pelvic area for women, as the tip of the clitoris (which is removed) is literally just the tip. The organ itself is made of similar tissue as the shaft of the penis, but internally it divides in two "shafts" that encircle the urethra and vagina. It is surmised that the so-called "G-spot" is actually part of this internal structure of clitoris.

Additionally, whether you're male or female, I suggest taking a pencil that's the width of a drinking straw, and trying to stick it into your urethra, to see if the passageway isn't normally much thinner than that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urethra

ooc: THANK YOU. The drinking straw line had me cringing repeatedly, but I'd no idea how to be diplomatic about it.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Apologies. I fixed it And my point still remains - comparing FGM to circumcision is (ironically in this context) bollocks.

It is not. In both cases the procedure is carried out without the subject's express and informed consent. This is the thing that Alexis most objects to. Among the Servants of the True Way of the Will, such subversions of self-determination are held as capital crimes and punished with the same severity as one servant killing another without justification. Whether one is religious or not is irrelevant to the question for her. Whether one is considered 'harmless' or not similarly does not factor in. Whatever the procedure is, it can wait until the person is old enough to decide for themselves to undergo that procedure. If there is any religious point to be derived from the procedure, the person doing it by choice accepts and embraces the meaning of doing so. As the servants say: "A sacrifice is meaningless if you do not appreciate what you have given."

To force any such procedure on them when they are unable or unwilling to consent is to her the greater crime and denigrates whatever 'meaning' may be held in the procedure.

For the Assembly to deny one procedure while allowing the other strikes her as contradictory and hypocritical. No amount of 'but Circumcision is harmless' will dissuade her from this point.

[Greater Gilead]

Explain.

Andrew Wardle.

I looked him up. It does not seem to help your argument at all.
Also, @Godular: So you would be in favor of banning circumcision. You would get all the Jews, all the Muslims, all the Christians, and a lot more people mad. I agree it is hypocritical to allow one, and not the other, so repeal GAR 114!

[Attempted Socialism]

"We would like to note that any male official from Greater Gilead in the Solidarity Movement not currently seeking political asylum will be sedated and upon awakening will have their genitalia mutilated by whatever rusty and dull instrument is nearby when they wake up. Their consent is presupposed, so we just assume they will accept the offer, no need to bother asking first."
The Ambassador drops a microphone, but since she's talking into a table-top mic, it's clearly just for show.
"Sadly, it appears we do not have any officials from Greater Gilead. It is a nation so worthless, we do not even have diplomatic ties to break off, and no Ambassador to throw out. Until Greater Gilead gains any relevance, it will have to be an empty threat. Oh well. Meanwhile, we have ensured that all Socialists who are trying to assist this nationstate equivalent of a trainwreck, such as health workers, foreign aid workers and educators, are secure. We have also made an application process specific to refugees from Greater Gilead. If you want a safe, happy and plentiful future, simply go to our website, click on the banner saying 'Fleeing Greater Gilead?' and follow the instructions."
'MacBeth' Illum picks up the microphone from the floor to drop it again.

[Wallenburg]

The thing is, you are not being entirely honest.

The male equivalent of FGM is Penectomy. Literally Penectomy. That is about as close as you can come to a suitable comparison between the two practices.

And I know of no religion that requires males to have their cocks cut off as a part of their religious rites. In fact, I cannot imagine any religion in the world EVER requiring that because almost every religion is run by and for the convenience and pleasure of men, and there is no WAY they would have allowed someone to write in their holy books "And so, when a man reaches the age of adulthood, he must have his willy and his goolies hacked off with a scythe". So while they are quite happy to torture and mutilate women in the name of a divine being, they would NEVER allow it to be done to themselves.

If you want pretend they are equal go ahead, but you are lying to yourself, and to everyone else.

I did not realize that FGM involved removing the uterus and urethra.

[Calladan]

OOC: Ok, I'm very much not in favour with the procedure, but I think you need to brush up on your anatomy lessons. First of all, you can't remove the whole clitoris without removing much of the internal structures of the pelvic area for women, as the tip of the clitoris (which is removed) is literally just the tip. The organ itself is made of similar tissue as the shaft of the penis, but internally it divides in two "shafts" that encircle the urethra and vagina. It is surmised that the so-called "G-spot" is actually part of this internal structure of clitoris.

Additionally, whether you're male or female, I suggest taking a pencil that's the width of a drinking straw, and trying to stick it into your urethra, to see if the passageway isn't normally much thinner than that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urethra

ooc: THANK YOU. The drinking straw line had me cringing repeatedly, but I'd no idea how to be diplomatic about it.

Apologies. I fixed it And my point still remains - comparing FGM to circumcision is (ironically in this context) bollocks.

It is not. In both cases the procedure is carried out without the subject's express and informed consent. This is the thing that Alexis most objects to. Among the Servants of the True Way of the Will, such subversions of self-determination are held as capital crimes and punished with the same severity as one servant killing another without justification. Whether one is religious or not is irrelevant to the question for her. Whether one is considered 'harmless' or not similarly does not factor in. Whatever the procedure is, it can wait until the person is old enough to decide for themselves to undergo that procedure. If there is any religious point to be derived from the procedure, the person doing it by choice accepts and embraces the meaning of doing so. As the servants say: "A sacrifice is meaningless if you do not appreciate what you have given."

To force any such procedure on them when they are unable or unwilling to consent is to her the greater crime and denigrates whatever 'meaning' may be held in the procedure.

For the Assembly to deny one procedure while allowing the other strikes her as contradictory and hypocritical. No amount of 'but Circumcision is harmless' will dissuade her from this point.

Really? That is your reason why they are exactly the same? Because they are both carried out without consent?

I could walk up and slap you with out your consent, or I could walk up and shoot you in the head. So I guess - since they are both carried out without your consent - they are exactly the same? That both would have the same effect on you? That there is no difference between the two?

I understand the point you are making, but I entirely disagree that the effects are comparable because they are both done without consent.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

I agree it is hypocritical to allow one, and not the other, so repeal GAR 114!

I grow tired of such shallow arguments. "It's hypocritical to allow a fingernail to be cut, and not allow the finger to be skinnned!" "It's sexist to allow women to have babies and not men!" "It's religious persecution to not allow the sacrificing of virgins!" "A baby can't consent to a haircut, so you can't cut its hair!"

Please.

I'm done here.

[Dorran]

Andrew Wardle.

I looked him up. It does not seem to help your argument at all.
Also, @Godular: So you would be in favor of banning circumcision. You would get all the Jews, all the Muslims, all the Christians, and a lot more people mad. I agree it is hypocritical to allow one, and not the other, so repeal GAR 114!

Or... and hear me out here... we ban both. Regardless of how mad it makes people because people wanting something does not make it the moral choice.

[Godular]

ooc: THANK YOU. The drinking straw line had me cringing repeatedly, but I'd no idea how to be diplomatic about it.



It is not. In both cases the procedure is carried out without the subject's express and informed consent. This is the thing that Alexis most objects to. Among the Servants of the True Way of the Will, such subversions of self-determination are held as capital crimes and punished with the same severity as one servant killing another without justification. Whether one is religious or not is irrelevant to the question for her. Whether one is considered 'harmless' or not similarly does not factor in. Whatever the procedure is, it can wait until the person is old enough to decide for themselves to undergo that procedure. If there is any religious point to be derived from the procedure, the person doing it by choice accepts and embraces the meaning of doing so. As the servants say: "A sacrifice is meaningless if you do not appreciate what you have given."

To force any such procedure on them when they are unable or unwilling to consent is to her the greater crime and denigrates whatever 'meaning' may be held in the procedure.

For the Assembly to deny one procedure while allowing the other strikes her as contradictory and hypocritical. No amount of 'but Circumcision is harmless' will dissuade her from this point.

Really? That is your reason why they are exactly the same? Because they are both carried out without consent?

I could walk up and slap you with out your consent, or I could walk up and shoot you in the head. So I guess - since they are both carried out without your consent - they are exactly the same? That both would have the same effect on you? That there is no difference between the two?

Different in magnitude, but the same crime nonetheless. Try to strike a Servant, get a broken arm. Try to shoot a Servant, get a spear through your chest. The instant you attack or attempt to coerce a Servant through force or other means, all bets fly off the table.

I understand the point you are making, but I entirely disagree that the effects are comparable because they are both done without consent.

To the Servants, consent and self-determination are quite absolutely their eminent concern.

@GG: The Servants are not in favor of banning either, though they consider both to be heinous violations of one's bodily integrity (one vastly more heinous than the other). They are in favor of banning its compulsory aspect and any attempts to administer such procedures to children that are incapable of knowing better.

[Calladan]

Really? That is your reason why they are exactly the same? Because they are both carried out without consent?

I could walk up and slap you with out your consent, or I could walk up and shoot you in the head. So I guess - since they are both carried out without your consent - they are exactly the same? That both would have the same effect on you? That there is no difference between the two?

Different in magnitude, but the same crime nonetheless. Try to strike a Servant, get a broken arm. Try to shoot a Servant, get a spear through your chest. The instant you attack or attempt to coerce a Servant through force or other means, all bets fly off the table.

I understand the point you are making, but I entirely disagree that the effects are comparable because they are both done without consent.

To the Servants, consent and self-determination are quite absolutely their eminent concern.

I am not a Servant. I am a regular human being. And while consent is important, I also take into account effect - being shot and being slapped are two WILDLY different effects and I treat them as such.

And so - to get back to the original point - FGM and Circumcision are VERY different because of the effect. One is torture and the other is....... not.

That's why they should be treated differently.

[East Kerbin]

I completely am horrified by the fact that we somebody wants to make FGM legal.

BUT...

The person has a point. It does remove a part of a religion, technically destroying the freedom of religion. Because of this, I am for this repeal.

[Calladan]

I completely am horrified by the fact that we somebody wants to make FGM legal.

BUT...

The person has a point. It does remove a part of a religion, technically destroying the freedom of religion. Because of this, I am for this repeal.

Are you sure you want to set that precedent?

The world of NS is an infinite and wonderful place. What if there is a religion out there that requires the keeping of slaves as a primary part of its religion? Do you call for and support a repeal of GAR #23?

What if there is a religion out there that calls for the defloration of girls the moment they have their first period, regardless of whether they have reached the age of majority or not? Do you call for and support a repeal of GAR #222 and maybe GAR #300?

What if there is a religion out there that calls for religious courts and religious doctrine to be the ultimate authority in all criminal cases? Do you call for and support the repeal of GAR #201?

(Okay - that last one was a bit of a stretch, but you get the idea).

If you are going to support the idea, and the precedent, that any resolution can be repealed under Freedom of Religion, then arguably ANY resolution can be repealed under Freedom of Religion because there are some truly fraked up religions out there, and they have some weird ass rituals attached to them.

That this involves torturing little girls at the behest of men is a very good indication of that fact for a start.

I won't deny that giving people the freedom to practice the religion is not unimportant, but - as with all things - moderation is important and there has to be a point where you say "No. This far, and no farther". And as long as you apply that line equally across the entire WA, I don't see that people have much to complain about.

(And personally I think it should stop WAY before you reach the stage of torturing little girls. But that might be just me).

[Godular]

Different in magnitude, but the same crime nonetheless. Try to strike a Servant, get a broken arm. Try to shoot a Servant, get a spear through your chest. The instant you attack or attempt to coerce a Servant through force or other means, all bets fly off the table.



To the Servants, consent and self-determination are quite absolutely their eminent concern.

I am not a Servant. I am a regular human being.

Go you.

And while consent is important, I also take into account effect - being shot and being slapped are two WILDLY different effects and I treat them as such.

In practical terms, they are not all that different. A physical strike can actually prove lethal, just like a gunshot wound. Is it as LIKELY to be lethal? No. But the chance exists, and so it will be responded to as such.

And so - to get back to the original point - FGM and Circumcision are VERY different because of the effect. One is torture and the other is....... not.

That's why they should be treated differently.

And the largest portion of your argument is based on the idea that circumcision is administered early on and nobody 'Feels' mutilated because of it (which I have already stated is a flawed point on its own), whereas FGM is administered at a time where the young girl is capable of understanding pain and the idea of being forced into something she does not want. Were it to be administered on the same timeframe as circumcision, no girl raised in such conditions would 'feel' mutilated for the same reason that you don't feel mutilated for your circumcision.

If anything, Alexis would be against repealing GAR 114 because she'd prefer to repeal the GAR on Circumcision, which won't necessarily deny any nations the right to practice such a tradition in the doing, and replace it with a bill similar to 114 relating to Circumcision, as the ban on FGM does not prohibit women from undergoing the process if they explicitly choose to do so.

If you feel like it infringes upon your 'Religious Freedom'(tm) to have to wait until the child can understand what such a procedure means and decide whether they actually want to go through with it, mayhap your religion deserves a system shock.

[Lauchenoiria]

Lauchenoiria opposes this repeal entirely as FGM is torture and moral decency in this case is more important than religious freedom.