ICELAND: Parliament May Cave to Pressure to Call Off Circumcision Restrictions

Not too long ago, I posted on the latest bill in Iceland to restrict circumcision to consenting adults.

Circumcision advocates want to call it a "ban," but if putting an age limit on circumcision is a "ban," then alcohol is "banned" in the United States.

Oh no! What to do. Children can't buy beer and those who sell or buy it for them are defying the law!

There are also laws against sex with minors, which means there's a "ban" on sex too!

Or freedoms are being taken away! Oh noes!

Well anyway, according to Arutz Shevah, Israel National News, Iceland is "dropping" the ban.

I mean, measure.

Well, not quite yet, but it seems it's getting there.

According to the article linked above, parliament’s judicial committee recommended against its passage.

That doesn't exactly mean the measure has actually been "dropped" yet, parliament has yet to make a decision.

Also, a rabbi breaks Godwin's Law by invoking Hitler.

"The Nazis enacted such a law in 1933 and we know how it ended," Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the CER, said at a conference in Iceland organized by Protestant and Catholic European groups.

There are laws against female circumcision. How have those ended?

I think the world will be better off once male infant genital mutilation is banned, and the practice is relegated to the trash bin of history where it belongs.

But as I said in my last post, I don't think that day is today, and when that measure does fail, people should not be surprised. I think there are alternative solutions that would satisfy both parties, and those ought to be pursued instead.

Intactivists have a long road ahead of them.

Related Links:

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: An Alternative to a Ban?

TWITTER REPLY: "Female Circumcision Keeps Us Clean Down There"

Female genital cutting, known as "sunat," is common in South East Asia

I recently posted the following Tweet:

Women who raise a stink about smegma in intact men act like their uncircumcised vulva smells like raspberries and cream. How dare they balk at intact men when their vulva is a disaster zone 7 days out of the month anyway.

— Joseph Lewis (@Joseph4GI) March 3, 2018

And, what seems to be a female Muslim woman's profile, replied with this:

That is why we Muslim women support female circumcision. It keeps us clean down there pic.twitter.com/lQWTgujIKi

— Kubra Jawher (@Sithy321) March 3, 2018

I think this should serve to highlight the dangers of condemning the forced genital cutting of one sex, but condoning it in the other.

There is this firewall between female genital cutting and male genital cutting, where, at least until now, ne'er the twain shall meet, but this coming back to bite anti-FGM groups in the pussy. (Did I just say that?)

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and as long as male infant circumcision can be defended "because it's cleaner," "because studies says it prevents disease," leaves the door open for female infant circumcision advocates to defend female genital cutting using the same pretexts.

Either religion, "parental choice," and/or "research" justifies the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

As long as anti-FGM advocates want to have this firewall up between FGM and MGM, then they fight a losing battle.

THIS is the shit they're going to be up against; a mirror image of themselves.

Related Post:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

It's been a while since I've written, and I don't have time to write a post dedicating the time and effort that this issue deserves, so I'm going to make this quick.

The long and the short of it is that there is a ban on circumcision being talked about in Iceland, and predictably, religious groups, those who practice the forced circumcision of non-consenting boys and some who don't, are clutching their pearls.

The bill rightly describes the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors to be a violation of basic human rights, and suggests a 6-year prison term for anyone found guilty of "removing sexual organs in whole or in part."

There is an exception in the bill for medical necessity, which is actually how all other surgery works; under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Addressing religious traditions, it insists the "rights of the child" always exceed the "right of the parents to give their children guidance when it comes to religion."

The move follows advice from doctors in Denmark, who have said boys under the age of 18 should not be circumcised; the Danish Medical Association said it had considered suggesting a legal ban on the procedure for children.

Backlash From Religious Advocates
As almost anyone would have guessed, the move to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting males is already being condemned as "an attack on religious freedom."

One of the first critics of the proposal actually came from the President of the Catholic Church in the European Union.

“Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case this concern is instrumentalized, without any scientific basis, to stigmatise certain religious communities. This is extremely worrying,” Marx said in a statement.

It is interesting that he cites lack of "scientific basis," seeing as religious groups circumcise as a matter of religious conviction, which has zero to do with science.

I should also inquire about the validity of his claim, whether he has a degree in urology, pediatrics, surgery or even in medicine at all.

The reality of the situation is that not a single respected medical organization recommends the practice of forced male infant circumcision.

All of them, including our very own AAP, cite that "the benefits are not great enough."

Not surprisingly, Muslim and Jewish groups are already condemning this as an attack on their religious freedom.

We've been here before

7 Years ago, a similar ban was proposed in San Francisco, and although it was put on the ballot, religious groups made enough noise to have it struck off before anyone could even vote on it.

In a rare display of alliance, Jewish and Muslim groups actually coalesced, cooperated and spoke unanimously against the ban. I don't think they quite agree that female circumcision should be protected as "religious freedom," however.

Which brings us to the crux of why there is a problem with a lack of a ban on male infant circumcision to begin with.

Sexist, self-serving double-standards
Mention male infant circumcision, and it seems to be this given; that suggestion that it should be banned is "an attack on religious freedom."

Mention that female infant circumcision is seen as a religious obligation, and suddenly the "religious freedom" argument flies out the window.

In most Western countries, the forced genital cutting of girls and women is banned, and there is no exception for people who see it as a religious conviction.

Actually, there will be no shortage of people saying that since female circumcision isn't written in say, the Koran or any major holy book, that it can't "really" be considered "religious."

The term "special pleading" comes to mind.

Male circumcision wouldn't be mentioned in the Koran either.

It is "fitrah," mentioned in Hadith, but not once does it appear in the Koran.

Which is funny, because the same is also true for female circumcision.

I think it's funny, that self-serving people who want to justify their own "religious tradition" of forcibly cutting the genitals of boys have the nerve to pretend to dictate to others what their religious beliefs will be.

For better or for worse, the great majority of Muslims in South East Asia believe that female circumcision is as Islamic a virtue for girls and women as male circumcision is for boys and men.

And who are others to tell them what their beliefs will be?

If Jewish scholar Leonard Glick is correct, male infant circumcision as a "covenant" does not appear in the first manuscripts of the Torah; it would appear that this mitzvah was grafted out of the blue at the very last minute. The case can be made that "male infant circumcision wasn't originally part of the covenant."

Ah, but then Jewish defenders of the practice will turn around and say "Non-Jews shouldn't tell Jews how to practice their religion."

Isn't it funny how the same people  say "Well female circumcision isn't actually Muslim practice," will turn around and tell you to mind your own business when you dare scrutinize their religion?

The bottom line
It boils down to this; either "parental choice," "religious freedom" and/or "my culture/tradition" works to justify the forced genital cutting of children, or it doesn't.

It is inconsistent and sexist to have a ban that protects girls and only girls, regardless of the religious conviction of their parents, but allow the forced genital cutting of boys "for religious reasons."

The forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors needs to be allowed, or condemned for all.

You can't have it both ways.

A long way to go
I end this post by saying that, while I think there ought to be a ban, that if there is a ban on female genital cutting with no exception for religion, it only follows there needs to be a similar ban for male genital cutting, it's simply unrealistic and it's going to backfire.

Recall the attempt to ban forced male infant circumcision in San Francisco; not only were religious groups successful in getting the measure off the ballot before anyone could cast their vote, opportunist politicians also made names for themselves by legally preventing any further attempts at a ban.

Female circumcision was easily banned in Western countries because people already saw female circumcision with disdain.

At the moment, most people simply don't see forcibly cutting a healthy, non-consenting male child's genitals as a big deal.

It is often said that in a huge movement like this, laws are the very last thing to change.

During the times of slavery, when there were calls to outlaw the practice, those who wanted to continue to keep slaves, doubled-down on their intentions and enacted legislature that "protected" their "rights."

People who are hell-bent on preserving this practice of forced genital cutting are not going to give up without a fight.

But it's going to take time to get people on our side and finally legally condemn the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors.

I predict that the measure in Iceland is going to fail.

Icelandic leaders are going to cave to pressure to "protect religious freedom."

But this should be of no surprise, and it should in no way be used to measure our progress as intactivists.

That this measure is actually being considered is progress enough.

Even if this measure fails, we shouldn't be discouraged, I'm not going to be discouraged; I'm still going to be right here speaking out against the basic human rights violation that is the forced genital cutting of minors.

Related Posts

San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

LEGISLATION: A Possible Solution?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Self-Serving FGM Myths That Persist

It's been a while, and I was thinking a post on my blog is long overdue. Believe it or not, your blogger does have a life outside of intactivism; a family to raise, bills to pay, a job to be at. I really wish I had more time to dedicate to this, as I believe it to be a worthy cause.

At any rate, this post was touched off by a recent private message war on Facebook.

It seems that people that both defend the forced circumcision of males, but oppose the forced circumcision of females have an arsenal of canned responses that they're ready to fire off at any given moment. Furthermore, it seems that they haven't given these responses much thought, for upon further investigation, one can see the logical fallacies in their arguments.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same person can present an argument in favor of male infant circumcision, but for whatever reason, the same argument fails when used in favor of female circumcision, and vice versa, an argument used against female circumcision that would also work against male circumcision, but for whatever reason, doesn't apply.

One can witness male circumcision apologists trying their hardest to have it both ways, going through mental gymnastics to make their arguments work.

I shall talk about the points raised in my latest exchange on Facebook Messenger without naming any names to save the person embarrassment.

"Americans do not practice barbaric, pointless practices that leave females in pain for the rest of their lives like genital mutilation also commonly called "female circumcision"."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:

• Male infant circumcision isn't barbaric
• Male infant circumcision isn't pointless
• Female circumcision always results in pain for the rest of their lives
• Only forced female genital cutting can be euphemised with the word "circumcision"

This statement is rather flawed, because it relies on a straw-man argument. FGM is "barbaric and pointless mutilation" because it "it leaves females in pain for the rest of their lives."

While FGM does have disastrous results in some cases, this simply isn't true for most women. Even the WHO acknowledges that there are varying degrees of severity for FGM, and that the worst form of FGM, also known as "infibulation," or "pharaonic circumcision," is actually the rarest. A New York Times article says it is as low as 15%. Actually, most women in Africa who have been circumcised don't complain, according to Catania and Johnsdotter. The majority of women in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are circumcised, and, like American parents regarding male circumcision, they don't see what the big deal is.

A circumcised African woman sounding off

A circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind

This is important to point out, because some of the biggest arguments that advocates use to justify the forced genital mutilation of boys in America are that:

• Boys don't remember what happened to them as infants
• Adult men don't complain
• Adult men enjoy sex (the converse argument being that circumcised women don't)

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same argument that would justify male infant circumcision would justify female infant circumcision, but it somehow just doesn't, or people would rather continue to belief myths that simply aren't reality, because what is true for adult circumcised in America, is true for adult circumcised women in say, Malaysia, Indonesia and countries in Africa.

So it must be asked.

Is pain and/or whether or not it can be remembered in adulthood what makes the forced genital cutting of minors "barbaric, pointless mutilation?"

Is pain and whether or not it can be remembered the issue here?

The fact is that most men weren't circumcised as infants. That's an American or Jewish phenomenon. Most men who are circumcised in the world are circumcised at later ages, when they can remember what is happening to them. I don't hear anyone decrying the fact that scores of men die yearly in initiation rituals in Africa.

A girl is circumcised in Bandung, Indonesia

"BARBARIC AND POINTLESS MUTILATION!"

A boy is circumcised in the same city.

"Nothing to see here... He can still have sex. It's OK."

On with the next part of my exchange:

"If male circumcision was anything like this female "circumcision" practiced in parts of the world, they would have their entire penis removed and not just a flap of skin that can get constricted later in life."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:

• Female circumcision is all one and the same
• All female circumcision completely removes the equivalent of the entire penis
• The foreskin in males is merely a flap of skin that can and usually always does, get constricted later in life
• The potential for problems is enough to justify the removal of a body part

Even the WHO recognizes that there are varying degrees of severity of female circumcision, and that not all remove the clitoris, which the person wants to equate here, with the entire shaft of the penis. As I have already said above, the worst kind of FGM is actually the rarest form.

The question then becomes, would FGM variations that are as severe, or even less severe than male circumcision as it is justified in the United States, be justified?

Is FGM justified so long as it is as severe, or less severe than male infant circumcision as we know it?

I invited the person arguing with me to look at this paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, where authors propose just that. Not too long ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) itself tried to justify what they called a "ritual nick."

The fact of the matter is that, even in the most severe cases of FGM, it is simply impossible for the clitoris to be removed in its entirety from the female vulva. As Catania argues, only the tip of the clitoris can ever be removed, leaving plenty of clitoris behind in a woman for sexual stimulation. Even women who have undergone infibulation are still able to enjoy sex and experience orgasm. The claim that female genital cutting renders a woman a sexual cripple for the rest of her life is simply categorically false.

Diagram of internal female anatomy taken from Wikipedia

Other facts that I invited this person to observe are that worldwide, 70% of males are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of men experiencing the "problems" she presents. I invited this person to consider that other body parts are susceptible to disease, but that they aren't removed at birth. 1 in 8 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. 1 in 6 American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The rate of men developing problems that may require surgical correction is approximately 1%.

The external labia are also "flaps of skin," which could be affected by disease and infection. It is one of the areas affected by cancer. So should these be removed as well?

I'd like to point out to my readers how the argument that "it could cause problems later on" only works when addressing the male foreskin.

Continuing with my exchange:

 "Males with constricted foreskins have to have the foreskin removed or face serious infections."

 Myths repeated here:

• The foreskin is prone to problems
• The problem is usually a constricted foreskin
• All men with constricted foreskins develop problems including serious infections

I keep asking people to look at reality. Because what is that reality? That 70% of all men in the world are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of constricted foreskins and "serious infections."

The fact of the matter is that true phimosis is actually quite rare, occurring at a rate of about 1%. Some men may have non-retractile foreskins that have nothing to do with phimosis, but the majority of these men live their lives with no problems. Infections, when they occur, can usually be taken care of with conventional medicine, just as they are taken care of in women, when they develop infections.

Some men do need surgery, but these cases are rare. What is the reason for the exaggeration? The person is trying to justify male circumcision. Of course, inner and outer labia have their own problems and diseases they are prone to, and some women must have them removed, but let's not talk about why early removal of them in girls is justified.

The exchange continues:

 "Having the foreskin removed is what male circumcision involves while in female circumcision, they basically cut deep into an area full of nerves and blood vessels, a very horrible, completely barbaric practice that serves no rational purpose. It is only cruel in every way imaginable."

Myth purported:

• The foreskin is not an area full of nerves and blood vessels

Really?

I want readers to notice how hyperbole is quite justified when speaking out against female circumcision, as is minimization when speaking in favor of male infant circumcision. The opposite is true; any attempt at minimizing FGM is met with hostility, and speaking about any detriment to male infant circumcision is "hyperbole."

Female circumcision is horrible, completely barbaric, serves no rational purpose, and only cruel in every way imaginable. Really? That's not what people who do it think. I hope it's obvious now that the grounds on which female circumcision is attacked, and on which male circumcision is defended is all self-serving special pleading. The conflicting rationale that only works for or against the circumcision of one sex are a necessary result of cognitive dissonance; the mental acrobatics necessary to holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind.

Research shows that the most sensitive area on a man's penis is in the transitional region from the external to the internal part of the foreskin, also known as the mucocutaneous junction, and that this is removed by circumcision. 

Diagram from Sorrells et al. study on penile sensitivity

Of course, the foreskin is also an area full of nerves and blood vessels, 20,000 nerves to be exact, however, in the mind of the person I'm having this exchange with, it isn't a problem to cut these off in boys.

The person persists and responds, recycling the same rationale, and repeating what this person already said before in even louder tones:

Saying that you can still have an orgasm if your clitoris is cut off is like saying that you can still use your arm if it is cut off.  Yes, you can still have vaginal orgasms as one still has a vagina.  However, a female can't have a clitoral orgasm if they have no clitoris and truth is that most females have clitoral orgasms far easier & more frequently than vaginal orgasms.

Why does anyone try to make excuses and make up lies to defend female genital mutilation where the truth is that there is no excuses for clitoris removal regardless!  It is equivalent to removing a male's penis head where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located.

Even after I presented evidence the contrary the following myths persist:

• Orgasm and/or sexual enjoyment is simply impossible without a clitoris
• The clitoris is always and completely removed during FGM
• Intactivists are trying to defend FGM
• Clitoral removal is equivalent to removing the glans penis in the male
• The glans is where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located

They say you can take a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Science and research are proving all these myths to be false, yet they persist.

It is actually possible to orgasm after losing the glans. There are videos of men ejaculating post penectomy. (Go to X-Tube and search "penectomy.") It is also interesting to note that transsexuals who undergo surgery are still able to enjoy sex without their penises.

Not that this justifies cutting off children's penises in any way; I'm just trying to dispel the "can't enjoy sex" myth and why it fails as any arguing point.

Let's explore this idea that removing part of the body doesn't affect its function.

You can still see with one eye. You can still taste if I cut off the tip of your tongue. Who sees better though? Who tastes better? Likewise, who feels more? Who has better sensations?

The bottom line

 Is it truly a matter "severity?"

Because even the WHO recognizes that not all FGM removes the clitoris. The WHO and AAP acknowledge that some forms of FGM are as severe, if not less severe than male infant circumcision.

Is it a matter of "pain?"

Because women circumcised as infants don't remember it either. And girls can be anesthetized as males can be.

Is it a matter of sexual enjoyment?

Because the great majority of circumcised women will tell you they enjoy sex and can orgasm just fine, just as the great majority of circumcised men will tell you.

The bottom line is this:

Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, the forced genital cutting of ANYONE is a gross violation of basic human rights.

Arguments that only work in favor or against forced circumcision of one sex, but not the other, are self-serving, ad-hoc, special pleading.

Even if female circumcision could be made "painless," and "less severe" than male circumcision, it would still be wrong.

Even if it could be proven that female circumcision would prevent scary diseases like HIV and cancer, forcibly doing it to non-consenting girls or women would still be wrong.

When an action is a basic human rights violation, how much sex a person can still enjoy afterward is secondary, if not irrelevant.

Related Posts:

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Links:
New York Times Magazine - A Cutting Tradition
All Africa - Africa: Female Circumcision - Orgasm Still Possible?
WHO - Classification of Female Genital Mutilation
Journal of Medical Ethics - Female genital alteration: a compromise solution

New York Times - Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

British Journal of Urology - Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

Last month, I posted about an Ethiopian man who was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his daughter's genitals.

In recent news, a woman doctor was charged with performing female genital cutting on young girls between six and eight years of age. Apparently, she's being doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, she faces life in prison.

Female genital cutting was made illegal in 1996 under the umbrella term "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). I assume that this law refers in particular to the forced genital cutting of girls for cultural or religious reasons, because women can go to doctors for "labiaplasty" and "vaginal rejuvenation" without a hitch.

In fact, there's a website openly running for a labiaplasty clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, right here.

My Thoughts
On the one hand, this ought to be the fate of any doctor who performs non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

On the other, whatever happened to "religious freedom" and "parental choice?"

If doctors are obliged to surgically alter the genitals of a male child on these grounds, then surely, they're obliged to alter the genitals of a female child, right?

I mean, at least for the case of male infant circumcision, the argument seems to be that doctors are these vassals who are supposed to respond to a parent's every beck and call.

What is the doctor in this case truly guilty of, other than honoring a parent's request and respecting their religious beliefs?

Whenever somebody objects to male infant circumcision, someone always has to defend it on the grounds that prohibiting it would be a "violation of religious freedom," and a "violation of parental rights."

Why the double-standards?

Why does it constitute "justice" to throw the book at a doctor who performs genital cutting in girls for "religious purposes" and honoring "parental prerogative," but "religious persecution" or "infringement on parental rights" to go after doctors who perform male genital cutting for the same reasons?

Why is it called "genital mutilation" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting girls without exemption, but "religious freedom" or "parental choice" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting boys?

For better or for worse, female genital cutting is a religious and/or cultural obligation for those who practice it. If this weren't so, people would not be risking their reputations, facing charges, being deported etc., to perform it.

Navigating the FGM problem without hypocrisy is impossible, and this is becoming increasingly obvious in this day and age.

Related Posts:

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.

While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.

While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.

There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.

While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.

While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.

In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.

It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.

Rather, my intention is to show simply this:

Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.

For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.

"...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."

Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.

It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.

"A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."

...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.

Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.

"Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."

Ritualistic cutting for boys is common in those same parts of the world. It's only a problem when it happens to girls.

"While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."

This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.

And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.

The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."

But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."

This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.

When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.

The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.

In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.

In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.

In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.

I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.

When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.

Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."

The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.

While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.

Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.

The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.

After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?

Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.

We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.

"Research" that involved "thousands of men."

I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?

What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?

What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?

What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"

Yes?

No?

Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?

The man in this case is being made an example of.

But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Especially when it comes to complications?

I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).

Why don't people care?

"Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."

Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.

Not too long ago, a mother was forced to sign consent papers for the forced genital cutting of her son.

 Contrast this picture with the one above

A father is deported for cutting his daughter.

A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.

While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.

Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."

This is the country we live in today.

"Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."

Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.

While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.

American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.

The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.

This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.

Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.

How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?

Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?

Conclusion
Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.


I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.

However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.

The following questions must be asked:

How far are actions justified by "culture?"

Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?

Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"

Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"

What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?

Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?

What about "parental choice?"

How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"

How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"

How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?

In the name of "culture?"

In the name of "religion?"

Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?

Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?

Relevant Links:

Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

FGM NEWS: Gynecologysts Urge a "Nick" as Compromise for FGM

As of 1996, federal law condemns the forced cutting of female genitals in any way, shape or form, and there is no exemption for any form of female genital cutting for religious purposes.

Even the smallest "ritual nick" constitutes "female genital mutilation" (FGM) under the law, and it is a punishable criminal offense.

In contrast, male infant circumcision can be freely performed by anyone, from a doctor with a scalpel, to a parent wielding an X-acto knife. The arguments are that parents have "parental choice," and/or "religious freedom" to cut off their child's foreskin.

For whatever reason "parental choice" as an excuse to cut up a child's genitals seems to be privilege bestowed upon parents, only if their religion is Judaism, and/or only if the child is male.

If you happen to be Muslim and you believe your religious beliefs command you to cut up your daughter, or if you happen to be a parent from Africa, whose tribe dictates that female members must undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, you're out of luck.

But a couple of gynecologists have just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics urging for compromise, proposing what they call a "nick."

The argument is that this could be a substitute for "more severe" forms of FGM.

Several news sources have already started weighing in on the matter.

Perhaps thanks to intactivism, the comparison of female genital cutting and female genital cutting is becoming almost compulsory in news outlets, if but only to insist that there actually be no comparison.

On some news articles, the authors seem to have forgotten the history of male circumcision in this country, or simply didn't bother to check.

And then, almost as if by clockwork, the obligatory reference to the WHO or AAP giving their non-committal endorsement of male circumcision is made, forgetting the fact that, at least in the case of the WHO, male circumcision is endorsed on males who voluntarily comply to be circumcised, which is slightly different than forcibly performing ritual cutting on a non-consenting minor.

From the CNN article:

"...all forms of FGM are rooted in the control of female sexuality. Male circumcision has its roots in cultural and religious practices involved in enforcing cleanliness, practices that have since been validated by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

Actually, male genital cutting, or "circumcision" as the authors prefer to euphemize it here, has roots in cultural and religious practices involved in attempting to curb masturbation in males, and to make them "more focused on god." The "validation," if one can even call it that, is a relatively recent phenomenon.

What is the implication here?

That it's merely a matter of changing the motives?

That if those who wished to perform female genital cutting would do it under pretense of "cleanliness," it would be more acceptable?

And why are the WHO and AAP invoked here?

I think it is interesting that they do; is the difference between female genital cutting and male genital cutting really whether or not the WHO and/or AAP "validate" it?

Or would female genital cutting be morally reprehensible regardless?

Incidentally, it seems organizations like the WHO and AAP are precisely the kind of people they're trying to woo.

These women better be careful what they wish for, or they just might get it.

Newsweek has this to say on the matter:

"Despite being perceived as a practice linked to Islam, FGM is a cultural practice that has no basis in religion. No religious texts prescribe FGM, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), while Human Rights Watch says the practice is “erroneously linked” to religion and “is not particular to any religious faith."

This is rather ballsy to be dictating people's beliefs, is it not?

The religiosity of male infant genital cutting seems to be off limits as a discussion point.

The WHO and HRW, however, will not hesitate to dictate what the beliefs of those who practice female genital cutting will be.

To be sure, the Qur'an makes no mention of either male or female genital cutting as a religious sacrament.

Female genital cutting, along with male genital cutting is, however, discussed in Hadith:

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”Bukhari 5891; Muslim 527

(Note that gender is not specified.)

Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.

Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.
Abu Dawud 41:5251

So note, women should be cut, just not "severely."

Well. At least according to Hadith.

So the claims that "no religious texts prescribe FGM" and that it is "erroneously linked" to religion, and "not particular to any religious faith" are wishful thinking and categorically false.

The question is, however, does it really matter?

Dr. Gillian Einstein is on to something.

This is an excerpt from the article at Global News:

“I think there’s a confusion over who controls the practice. So it’s women who control the practice, not men,” she said. 

“The practice itself does give women a lot of power. And so figuring out other sources of power is a culture change, and I think cultures that have thought about it from that perspective had been a lot more successful in changing the practice.”

Who controls the practice of male genital cutting?

Who would necessarily feel "power" by practicing it?

If males used this model of "power," what would stop females from the same society from adopting the same principle, only on their daughters, as fathers and male members with their sons?

Sadly Adwoa Kwateng-Kluvitse, head of global advocacy at the charity FORWARD, which campaigns against FGM in Africa and Europe, repeats falsehoods to serve her own ends:

“This is very different to male circumcision. With male circumcision there is no intention to attenuate sexual desire, control sexuality or enforce chastity.”

No, these were precisely the goals of John Harvey Kellogg and Sylvester Graham, the champions of male genital cutting in America.

Rabbi Maimonides tells us that desensitizing the male organ was precisely the purpose of male genital cutting as this would make its owner focused on more important things, like god and religious scripture.

This bold-faced, self-serving revision of history is appalling.

Arianne Shahvisi, a lecturer in medical ethics at Britain’s University of Sussex, drives home the point that "It comes down to women and girls being able to have a say in what happens to their bodies. One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent."

This is precisely our argument as intactivists.

Aurora and Jacobs, the authors of the paper advocating for the "nick" are actually inadvertently helping intactivists.

How?

They're actually coming out and admitting on a published journal that there are forms of female genital cutting that are less severe than male genital cutting as commonly practiced in the US and elsewhere.

An excerpt from Raw Story:

Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.

Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.

Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).

The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.

“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.

“Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.”

It took long enough, but finally people, notably women, in the academic field, are actually coming out and saying it.

This has all happened before.

Not too long ago, the AAP also tried to endorse a "ritual nick."

The arguments were identical; allow a less-severe form of female genital cutting, even less severe than male genital cutting as practiced in the west, in lieu of more severe forms.

The move was short-lived, as a world outcry caused them to renege.

Aurora and Jacobs go a step further and play the name game.

"Call it alteration instead," they say.

Does calling it something else really change what it is?

A forced, permanent violation of another, unwilling person's body?

The forced cutting up of a healthy, non-consenting person's most private, most intimate organs?

Should there be a compromise?

I think readers already know what my position on the subject is.

I'll end this one here and let you ponder for yourselves.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

Touched off by a recent post on the Intact America blog and the responses it got (not to mention that wanted to correct a glaringly obvious spelling mistake, and make a few other minor changes), I decided to re-post my blog entry "Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation."

Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation
Original Date of Publication: May 4, 2013

Male circumcision has been called "rape" and/or "mutilation" before, and many, even amongst intactivists themselves, object, either because they themselves find it inappropriate, or because they're afraid others might, thus pushing people away from the message of intactivism.

But are "rape" and "mutilation" so different from male circumcision, that comparing them is inappropriate, if not insulting?

What is rape?
Rape is the act of forcing another person to perform sex acts against his or her consent. The act may involve the usage of drugs to impair a victim's judgement, or even memory.

Traditionally, rape happens when a man forces a woman to perform sex acts on him. However, rape between two men, two women, and yes, even a woman forcing another man, is also possible.

When are sex acts NOT rape?

When both people are consenting adults, sex between two people is not rape.

Consent is the difference between ecstasy and rape.

When one person is forcing another person to perform sex acts against his/her express wishes, then rape is being committed.

What is mutilation?
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "mutilation" as thus:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)

 

2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple

When are these things NOT "mutilation?"

When either of these things are performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, they are not mutilation.

In addition, when these things are performed upon the request of a consenting adult, they are not mutilation.

Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.

What is circumcision?

In males, circumcision is the excision of the fold of flesh that covers the head of the penis. The procedure may or may not involve the use of drugs to kill the pain or impair the judgement of the person in question. Though there are speculative medical pretexts for circumcision, it is usually performed for cultural, traditional or religious, non-medical reasons, on healthy, non-consenting minors ranging between the newborn and pre-pubescent period, sometimes as far as the post-pubescent period. Very few circumcisions take place as a matter of actual medical necessity.

How is circumcision like rape?
At the crux of the intactivist argument is the principle of consent.

Circumcision can be compared to rape, because it is taking advantage of a minor to forcibly perform a permanent, disfiguring procedure on his sexual organs without his consent.

As in rape, the principle violated is the principle of consent, and the fact that pain killing drugs are used, and/or that the male victim may not be able to recall the event is irrelevant.

When is circumcision NOT like rape?

When it is performed on a fully consenting adult.

As in rape, the principle violated is that of consent.*

Because another, otherwise intelligent person, is forcing circumcision on another, non-consenting person, without his consent, sometimes against his express wishes, circumcision can be comparable to rape.

*Sometimes circumcision may be medically indicated in a minor that is not able to consent. When it has been determined that circumcision is medically indicated, and there are no other methods of treatment, circumcision is not comparable to rape. Reserving surgery as a very last resort is, however, standard medical practice governing all other forms of surgery.

How is circumcision mutilation?

From the definitions the online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives us, it is the first definition,

 1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (e.g. the child mutilated the book with his scissors)

that applies to both male and female circumcision, because it is "cutting up" or "altering radically so as to make [them] imperfect." 

Circumcision advocates often try to dismiss the notion that male circumcision is "mutilation" using definition 2,  

2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; cripple

"because the foreskin is not a limb or an essential part of" a person.

If by the 2nd definition male circumcision isn't "mutilation," then female circumcision isn't "mutilation" either.

Some may make the claim that female circumcision destroys a woman's ability to experience orgasm, but research shows this claim to be false. There are varying degrees of female genital cutting, and scientific evidence shows that even women undergoing the most severe form of female genital cutting are still able to experience orgasm. It is demonstrably proven that a clitoris is not necessary for experiencing orgasm and a satisfying sex life. For further reading on this subject, please click here.

When is circumcision NOT mutilation?

When it is performed as a matter of medical necessity, and there is no alternative option, circumcision is not mutilation. (This is actually standard medical practice that governs all other forms of surgery.)

In addition, when it is performed upon the request of a consenting adult, it is not mutilation.

Medical necessity and/or informed consent is the difference between surgery and mutilation.

Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument

Ladies who are interested in getting their labia removed, their clitoris permanently exposed, or any other surgical alterations to their genital organs can find the appropriate surgeon and schedule an appointment.

The removal of the clitoral hood and external labia are known as "clitoral unroofing" and "labiaplasty" respectively.  They are perfectly legal for the appropriate surgeons to perform at the request of the interested woman.

Forcibly performing any of these acts on a healthy, non-consenting minor constitutes "genital mutilation," and is punishable by law, and there is no exception for "religious beliefs."

The difference is consent.

There is nothing wrong with male circumcision, if, indeed, becoming circumcised is the express wish of the adult male in question.

It is forcibly circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor which is a problem.

Tattoos are beautiful to some. There is nothing wrong with a tattoo, as long a person is giving his full consent. A person interested in getting a tattoo need only walk into a tattoo parlor and make the proper arrangements, s/he is free to do as she wishes with her own body.

US sailor agrees to have his body tattooed

It is forcibly tattooing a person against his or her wishes which is a problem.

An Auschwitz survivor displays his identification tattoo

Yes, I am against forcibly piercing a minor's ears as well.

Conclusion
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

I don't compare circumcision to rape; without consent, or a medical necessity, circumcision IS rape.

I don't compare circumcision to mutilation; without a medical necessity, circumcision IS mutilation.

Is male circumcision "rape?"

Here. You decide.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

It is only through sexist double-think that we allow ourselves to feel disgust for only one of these pictures.

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

~Joseph4GI

External Link:

Circumcision and Rape: Does a Victim’s Memory Matter?

Related Posts:

Of Ecstacy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

The Faces of Genital Mutilation

If you have to make a face like this man and woman are making in these pictures, then you know very well that you must be doing something wrong to a child.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Men circumcising a newborn boy

Taking advantage of a smaller, weaker person, is the very definition of "abuse."

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"