Tweet
So last night I was talking with relatives about how I consider myself to be a mens rights activist, and that part of that involves ending male circumcision. I used the term male genital cutting, and was told that was offensive, because of the comparison to female circumcision, and that girls have the entire thing cut off. I am wondering what would have been the best response to that claim?
-
-
Well, for starters, there are actually 4 different main "styles" of female circumcision (perhaps more that I'm not remembering). The one in which they take everything is the least common method. Usually, they trim the labia...ironically, the reasons these societies use to justify the continued practice are much the same as the reasons the US uses to justify male circumcision: tradition, it's cleaner, "just a flap of skin", prevents medical issues, looks neater, helps prevent disease. None of these are true (except looks, which are obviously subjective).
It is true that there are "styles" of female circumcision that involve removing virtually the entire vulva and external clitoris. The problem comes from the assumption that the most extreme cases of FGM are entirely representative of the practice as a whole. In the worst cases, women receive 0 sexual pleasure, and can instead feel nothing but pain. However, there are absolutely cases of our male circumcision going wrong and leaving men in a very similar position...except that we're still told it's good for us, while a lot of countries ban the female version.
Certainly not advocating for FGM, nor trying to minimize the damage it does, but anyone who takes issue with FGM but not MGM is simply a hypocrite...or, more likely, ignorant. -
That's a horrifying attempt to stifle discussion.Originally posted by savethechildren View Post
For 96% of the planet, females are protected from even a pin-poke to draw a ceremonial drop of blood (nothing cut) with no religious exemption. Equal protection under the law is not an outrageous request.
Also of note, healthy intersex children are also at risk of non-therapeutic genital cutting. Just in the last year one hospital that used to brag about its ability to "normalize" atypical genitals has apologized and acknowledged its many victims. This followed repeated protests where many of those victims showed up repeatedly and said that what was done to them was not positive. I was at the protest shown in this CNN article. https://foreskinrestoration.vbulleti...rsex-surgeries
So we just say there is no need to debate which procedures are most harmful. FGM has some of the worst outcomes, but some males lose their penis and some die. Many more males are harmed every year compared to females. And a much higher percentage of intersex victims is vocally protesting what was done.
The bottom line is that all forced non-therapeutic genital cutting is unethical. Informed adults can decide for themselves. While we tolerate MGM we have no moral high-ground to advocate for an end to FGM. It will be easier to ban FGM if draw a bright line and say NO to all forced genital cutting.Comment
-
Tangentially, I've long wanted to transcribe this video while making some light edits to the transcript to make it appear as if it were taking place between two men. I think it would be especially provocative in a classroom setting in which two male students can play the roles of the two speakers. After finishing reading it, the professor could ask the class what their thoughts on circumcision are, then play part of the video and see if student reactions change.Comment
-
-
Here is a good analysis of why it makes sense to fully discuss both together:
[Full text] Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-ba | MB (dovepress.com)
RegardsComment
Comment