"circumcision not mutilation"

[JohnC]

It's long been the case on Bubhub that the word mutilate, or its cognates, should not be used for infant male circumcision on the entirely reasonable grounds that parents who have routinely circumcised their sons find this upsetting. There has always been a small problem with this, however: namely, we have been exhorted for several decades to describe female circumcision as genital mutilation, regardless of its severity. This double standard does not sit well with everyone.

We can relax now, for the Indonesian Department of Health has clarified the matter by issuing guidelines for "safe female circumcision", with a spokesperson Murti Utami making clear in recent press converage: “I would like to stress that female circumcision is not genital mutilation, which is indeed dangerous. They are two things that are very different.”

Murti added that "the guidelines provided directions on performing the procedure properly and safely and required that circumcision must only be carried out with parental consent. Furthermore, parents must be given information beforehand on pros and cons of the procedure. Circumcision is typically done at birth, or before a girl reaches the age of 5."

All sounds comfortingly familiar, doesn't it? And we now have a fully gender-neutral approach to circumcision which distinguishes it from genital mutilation, for both boys and girls.

Of course, Australians generally view all genital cutting of female children as mutilation, regardless of the upset this might cause those Muslim parents who favour circumcision for their daughters. So the Indonesian resolution of the double standard may have trouble finding widespread acceptance here.

There is an alternative approach, but that would involve embracing the "m" word for the genital cutting of male children, and hence breaching Bubhub guidelines.

I wonder what the 52 infant boys who will, on average, be circumcised today (and every other day) will make of this semantic problem when they are old enough to realise that unlike 85-97% (depending on where they live) of their peers, they have had their foreskins removed "routinely"?

[daysta112]

I have no issues with male circumcision, ds is not circumcised but may need to be for medical reasons in the future, I have never seen an uncircumcised male penis other than ds's. But would never dream of circumcisions on a female. I think it's horrible.

IMO. It's a personal choice, But do people who are against circumcision have issues if it's needed medically?

[share a book]

I have no issues with male circumcision, ds is not circumcised but may need to be for medical reasons in the future, I have never seen an uncircumcised male penis other than ds's. But would never dream of circumcisions on a female. I think it's horrible.

IMO. It's a personal choice, But do people who are against circumcision have issues if it's needed medically?

I do not know anyone who is against a necessary medical procedure. Take tonsils for instance. Many people have their child's tonsils out when they are still young, but they only do so if needed. If a kid has never had a problem with them, they would not be taken out.

[JohnC]

I have no issues with male circumcision ... But would never dream of circumcisions on a female. I think it's horrible.

This is a rather clear statement of the double-standard I was trying to highlight in the first place.

[Father]

This is a rather clear statement of the double-standard I was trying to highlight in the first place.

No John. You have just rudely mis-quoted daysta112. Would you like to explain why you removed the middle part of her statement? Is it the unfortunate truth that sometimes a circumcision is actually required?

[~Bec~]

No John. You have just rudely mis-quoted daysta112. Would you like to explain why you removed the middle part of her statement? Is it the unfortunate truth that sometimes a circumcision is actually required?

John C has used an ellipsis - a standard English convention that denotes some text has been deliberately omitted. Hardly "rudely mis-quoting". I do not wish to speak for John C, he is more than capable of doing that himself, however, I think it a fair assumption that the quote was shorted to highlight the point he was trying to make, namely the double standard of male and female circ.

In relation to your second point, I have never read anything by John C or any other anti-ric person on the hub or anywhere else that does not acknowledge that there are some medical circumstances where circ is required and no person in their right mind would lobby for such a procedure to be denied in those circumstances. People who are anti-circ are anti-RIC (routine infant circumsicion), ie, where an infant is circ'd in the absense of a specific medical circumstances.

[Opinionated]

He knows both of those already Bec, he just likes to act all indignant and offended.

[JohnC]

Would you like to explain why you removed the middle part of her statement?

Sure. It wasn't relevant to the point I was making -- and I certainly did not distort the meaning or intention of the post.

The issue I was raising in my original post is why we treat infant genital cutting differently between boys and girls. There does not seem to be a good answer for this, apart from cultural blindness. The Indonesians are at least consistent, since they support the circumcision of both boys and girls (for cultural/religious reasons).

It seems to me ethically incoherent to oppose all genital cutting of girls but arguing for (as you do) routine infant circumcision of boys.

Is it the unfortunate truth that sometimes a circumcision is actually required?

Yep, but far less frequently than many seem to imagine. European medical circ rates are generally in the 1-3% range for boys under 15 years. And medically indicated procedures are in any case irrelevant to the issue of routine/ritual circumcision.

[Father]

And medically indicated procedures are in any case irrelevant to the issue of routine/ritual circumcision.

No they are not. This is the point that you are missing. There are many health benefits of male circumcision. The RACP lists them. But you just choose to ignore them.
It is your stubbornness of accepting these health benefits that prohibits you from seeing the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation.
As much as you think you know my motivations better than myself, my boys were not 'ritually' circumcised. They were circumcised for the medical benefits that male circumcisions provide.

If you would like to draw the conclusion that male circumcision is the same as FGM, can you please provide me with scientific data that shows health benefits from FGM?

[VicPark]

If male circmcision has sooooooooo many health benefits they why does NO medical authority in any western nation recommend mass circumcision? Hmmmmm? Because the 'benefits' are as big as a bees weiner and are not enough to justify the circmcision of healthy boys!!