190 replies to this topic

[karaokeboy]

isilida 32 said:

i don't neccessarily see anything wrong with circumcising a man's penis. i do think female circumcisim is wrong. but if a parent chooses to have their son circumcised, it's the buisness. not a big deal either way.

Did you read the Journal of Medical Ethics article I posted at the top?

If not, please do.  I think you'll find that you may feel differently about circumcision.

If so, perhaps an "essay response" is in order...

[karaokeboy]

Magnetic North said:

I don't think it has much to do with views of masculinity, it is simply a more brutal procedure. Removal of the clitoris and sewing up of the labia does not equate to removing the foreskin. And this kind of procedure isn't done at infancy either (though i'm not sure i buy the whole "less painful at infancy" proposition anyway). As the article points out there is a range of different procedures that are performed, but the majority are of the more brutal variety. In many of the countires where its most widely done (oman, somalia, sudan) not only is it of the most brutal form, but also its not done by doctors or in hospitals. It is sometimes done with rusty ceremonial baldes and mostly in conditions that aren't anything near hygenic. I do think male circumcision is a harmful procedure, but there are degrees of harmfulness.

Keep in mind that I said: "automatically" with quotes around it.  I'm criticising the way people make the dichotomy without any sort of thought or justification behind it.

The relevant portion of the Journal of Medical Ethics article (yes, keep in mind that the bioethicists are on MY side):

"  To such arguments we would make three rejoinders. First, itis crucial to avoid essentialism; the different types of harmoccasioned though the range of practices covered by the terms"circumcision" must be unpacked rather than being representedas "a unitary whole" (p. 151).⁴⁸ Arguably, the less severe formsof female circumcision, such as ritual/symbolic circumcision(involving the drawing of blood but no permanent tissue damageor scarring)⁵⁴ or sunna (the cutting away of the prepuce ofthe hood of the clitoris) may be no more severe—or evenless severe—than conventional male circumcision, whichinvolves the removal of the foreskin or prepuce covering theglans of the penis.⁵⁵ Clearly the more extreme forms of femalecircumcision—excision (about 80% of cases; involves theremoval of the clitoris and all or part of the labia minor)and infibulation (about 15% of cases; involves removal of clitoris,labia minor and at least two-thirds of the labia majora, whichare then stitched together leaving only a small opening forthe passage of urine and menstrual blood)—are radicallydifferent in kind from most instances of male circumcision.However, it is worth noting the range of variation in the practicewitnessed in other cultures.⁵⁵
   Such arguments are obfuscated within the BMA guidance, as isparticularly evident in the Association’s guidance forfemale genital mutilation. Referring to the less severe practices,the guidance notes that:  

Other mutilations include pricking, piercing ... and introductionof ... herbs into the vagina ... The age at which such proceduresare carried out varies from a few days old to just before marriage.All forms are mutilating and carry serious health risks. Femalegenital mutilation is not comparable with male circumcision,over which there is no consensus about the health risks andpotential benefits (p. 1).⁵⁶    

     A further problematic distinction that also deploys a particulardefinition of the word "mutilation" is contained in the LawCommission’s report:  

It is generally accepted that the removal of the foreskin ofthe penis has little if any effect on a man’s abilityto enjoy sexual intercourse, and this act is not, therefore,regarded as a mutilation (para 9.2).²⁶    

     Nevertheless, if variations in the procedures render a simpleopposition between male and female circumcision problematic,other commentators have suggested that a more compelling distinctionlies in the justifications of the practice. On this view thepatriarchal underpinnings of female circumcision, which underminethe right of girls and women to "sexual and corporal integrity",⁵⁷accounts for much of the revulsion it provokes. Yet we are uneasywith the view that male circumcision is less problematic becauseit cannot be located in some grand theory of oppression. Asour brief outline of its historical emergence highlights, themotivations for and justification of male circumcision are morecomplex than is often allowed. Like female circumcision, includingpractices in the UK and the USA into the early twentieth century,it has been used to manage sexuality, and needs to be locatedwithin a framework that recognises how it normalises and privilegesthe male body. In light of this, feminist disinterest in, oracceptance of, the procedure may well be short sighted.

   Finally, we would reiterate that artificially contrasting thepractices in this way serves only to deflect attention fromthe more fundamental issue, which has also been obscured inEnglish law, of whether we should be subjecting any childrento medically approved procedures involving the excision of healthytissue. In this regard it is worth remembering that definitionsof the prepuce as merely a fold of skin covering the glans havebeen condemned as grossly simplistic. Rather the prepuce isa complex structure that has a range of significant sexologicalfunctions playing "an important role in the mechanical functioningof the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourseand masturbation" (p. 89).⁵⁸

   Given that no clear dichotomy necessarily exists between femaleand male circumcision, in terms of either the injury inflictedor the motivation for it, we question the lack of will on thepart of the medical profession, both institutionally and atthe level of some individual practitioners, to challenge theacceptability of the practice. "

[karaokeboy]

For those who are unwilling to devote 5 to 10 minutes reading what learned bioethicists have to say on the subject, here is a simpler Microsoft Power Point presentation that gets the basic message across: http://mgmbill.org/safiyah.pps

Go here: http://mgmbill.org/multimedia.htm for more slideshows and for help in viewing the presentation (such as the MPP viewer program)

[DrinkTheElixir]

I have made several posts on my feelings as regards circumcision in the past - I think that both male and female circumcision are mutilating acts and in most cases entirely unecessary.  In the UK, circumcision of men is not the norm - in the 17 years that I have worked in the medical profession I have maybe seen a handful that were for religious reasons.  Mostly, circumcisions were carried out in cases of phemosis or balanitis exerotica obliterans.  Put it this way, in my job you see alot of male genetalia - and I don't remember ever seeing a circumcised penis in 17 years of nursing.  That is how unusual it is.

The point in my previous post seems to have been missed.  Peoples horror and reactions to the thought of female circumcision I feel are far more complex than the negative feelings that people can have as regards male circumcision.  Female circumcision and the reasons for it go beyond any medical reasoning.  It has more to do with Patriarchal societies oppresion of female sexuality and reproduction in many cases.  Also, the procedure is far more invasive and carries far reaching risks.  That does not in any way take away the risks of male circumcision, it merely means that there are different implications.

Yes, there are similar complications in regard to shock, pain, bleeding, painful scars, formation of scar tissue infections, urinary complications and accidental lesions of the surrounding organs.  But you also have to consider labial adhesions, cysts of the clitoris, mutilation of the vulva, vaginal stones and the inability to conceive.  The psychological implications are vast, the feeling that your femininity has been diminished, the weakening or total abscence of sexual desire, lack of orgasm.  In societies such as these female circumcision is used as a method of control.

That is why there is so much of an outcry about female circumcision, in most countries it is not medicalised or carried out by a qualified practitioner - whereas male circumcision, in many more circumstances is both regulated and medicalized.

[isilida 32]

karaokeboy said:

Did you read the Journal of Medical Ethics article I posted at the top?

If not, please do.  I think you'll find that you may feel differently about circumcision.

If so, perhaps an "essay response" is in order...

i read through some of it. it's not that i don't think that male circucisim is harmful. it does carry some harm with it, as does most surgercial prodecures.  i just don't see making a big issue of it. if some people want to circumcise their sons or themselves than so be it. it's down to cosmestics in some ways now. i personally don't have a problem with it myself.

[karaokeboy]

DrinkTheElixer said:

That does not in any way take away the risks of male circumcision, it merely means that there are different implications.

Certainly!  I'm glad we're on the same page. :)

DrinkTheElixer said:

It has more to do with Patriarchal societies oppresion of female sexuality and reproduction in many cases.

Unfortunately, male circumcision has just as much to do with sexual regulation and gender identity as female circumcision.

I think it is this part, specifically, that this article addresses in such a plain-spoken, precise manner.  For example:

"Yet we are uneasy with the view that male circumcision is less problematic because it cannot be located in some grand theory of oppression. As our brief outline of its historical emergence highlights, the motivations for and justification of male circumcision are more complex than is often allowed. Like female circumcision, including practices in the UK and the USA into the early twentieth century, it has been used to manage sexuality, and needs to be located within a framework that recognises how it normalises and privileges the male body."

The section of the article titled "masculinity and pain" is where Fox and Thomson make the analysis of exactly what kind of framework male circumcision ought to be viewed.

[MurmursAdministrator]

OK, as  jew, I'm getting a bit offended at the prostelitizing. Please do not equate our cultural practices with FGM. That is slightly offensive.

If we have a boy, he will be born into a Jewish family and into those traditions including a bris.

[karaokeboy]

isilida 32 said:

i read through some of it. it's not that i don't think that male circucisim is harmful. it does carry some harm with it, as does most surgercial prodecures. i just don't see making a big issue of it. if some people want to circumcise their sons or themselves than so be it. it's down to cosmestics in some ways now. i personally don't have a problem with it myself.

It's not simply a matter of cosmetics.  That is perverse reductionism.  If you had read the article, then you'd understand that circumcision carries real, severe risks, and that, ultimately, male circumcision ought to be just as illegal as female circumcision.  To reduce it as much as you have, I might as well just talk about equal rights.  Why shouldn't parents be able to circumcise their girls for religious reasons?

Why, when it comes to genital integrity, are you willing to make exceptions for men?  Why do you feel that women have a right to a protected body, but men do not?

[isilida 32]

to be honest i don't see male circumcism as that big of a deal in the scope of things in life. and male circumcism is different circumcising a female. greatly different. and to some i'm sure that circumcising their son or themselves comes down to cosmetic reasons. i probaly should step out of this debate though. we could go round and round for hours on this.

[DrinkTheElixir]

karaokeboy said:

Certainly!  I'm glad we're on the same page. :)



Unfortunately, male circumcision has just as much to do with sexual regulation and gender identity as female circumcision.

I think it is this part, specifically, that this article addresses in such a plain-spoken, precise manner.  For example:

"Yet we are uneasy with the view that male circumcision is less problematic because it cannot be located in some grand theory of oppression. As our brief outline of its historical emergence highlights, the motivations for and justification of male circumcision are more complex than is often allowed. Like female circumcision, including practices in the UK and the USA into the early twentieth century, it has been used to manage sexuality, and needs to be located within a framework that recognises how it normalises and privileges the male body."

The section of the article titled "masculinity and pain" is where Fox and Thomson make the analysis of exactly what kind of framework male circumcision ought to be viewed.

I get your point, they were both intended to repress sexual desire.  However it is obvious that in most cases of female circumcision that control has been successful in the most barbaric sense (as I outlined in my previous post)  In the case of male circumcision, the sensitivity in the tip of the penis is reduced, but in most cases this does not prevent sexual arousal or orgasm.  So it *that* sense I can see why people view it as 'less problematic'.  If you can maintain an erection and ejaculate, one would assume that your sexuality is not being oppressed in the damning way that female circumcision does.  Again, different implications which have varying degrees of emotional impact on sexuality as a whole. It isn't a competition.

My problem lies with consent - youngsters who have this procedure carried out do not, obviously have a legal power of consent and from an ethical point of view I have a huge issue with that.  There are many issues as regards consent and ethics that I have an issue with, that, as a nurse places me in a very uncomfortable position.  And in those cases the implications have a much higher risk attatched as regards mortality and legal obligation - never mind the Doctors moral obligations that they align themselves with when they take the Hippocratic Oath (But that is a whole other thread ;) )

[Magnetic North]

karaokeboy said:

Keep in mind that I said: "automatically" with quotes around it.  I'm criticising the way people make the dichotomy without any sort of thought or justification behind it.

But i think most people (at least those who are aware of what all of the procedures involve) do make the dichotomy based on the physical harm caused, both in the immediate instance and in the longer term, not based on a view of gender. I don't think its contradictory to believe that both male and female circumcision are harmful, invasive and (where medically unjustified) unethical procedures yet at the same time dichotomize them based on the level of harm they cause. That is the opinion i hold. The writers of the article (and yes, i did read it) don't seem to make a distinction between the two genders in terms of how ethical/unethical it is. They state :

"Given that no clear dichotomy necessarily exists between female and male circumcision, in terms of either the injury inflicted...".

The cases of female circumcision that are not "necessarily" distinct from the male procedure are, by their own statistics, a mere 5%.

<i>"Clearly the more extreme forms of female circumcision—excision (about 80% of cases; involves the removal of the clitoris and all or part of the labia minor) and infibulation (about 15% of cases; involves removal of clitoris, labia minor and at least two-thirds of the labia majora, which are then stitched together leaving only a small opening for the passage of urine and menstrual blood)—are radically different in kind from most instances of male circumcision."</i>

How they can see "no clear dichotomy" is beyond me. I'm all in favour of bioethicists speaking out in opposition to male circumcision. But i don't believe in absolute right and wrong - some things are more unethical than others and it is important to make a distinction. I think they have a point with regard to the justification of male circumcision with regard to how the gender is viewed, but it is the nature of the medical procedure rather than gender identity issues that distinguish it from fgm.

I appreciate your attempts to clarify things.  :) But what is your own view on the ethical difference between the male and female procedures?

[karaokeboy]

ethank said:

OK, as jew, I'm getting a bit offended at the prostelitizing. Please do not equate our cultural practices with FGM. That is slightly offensive.

If we have a boy, he will be born into a Jewish family and into those traditions including a bris.

Ethan, I have nothing but respect for you.

Truly and honestly, nothing but respect.

That being said, this thread (and the article specifically) is about the medical pracitce of circumcision, and to be even more specific, the British Medical Association's 2003 statement.  It's not fair to shut down the discussion of medical ethics on the grounds that someone may get offended.  On a related note, it's also not fair to play religion as a trump card, especially in the public arena where laws, public policy, and ethics are being debated.

I can understand why equating male circumcision with female circumcision upsets you.  I respect your beliefs, but I cannot simply abandon my beliefs in human rights because you have (on this issue) contrasting beliefs.  It's not fair to ask me to do that, especially when the comparison being made is a sound one.

If the discussion is offending you, then ignore it, just as you (or I) would a bunch of Aryan assholes.  I feel that is the most just thing to do.  At the very least, we can agree to disagree and get on with things, right?

[karaokeboy]

Magnetic North said:

I appreciate your attempts to clarify things.  :) But what is your own view on the ethical difference between the male and female procedures?

My very bad attempts at clarification!  But thank you for the kind smile. :)

I think what I'm (and Fox and Thomson) am trying to say is that their isn't a clear dichotomy so much that one ought to be protected against by law and the other just free range.

What we're (I guess I could use that pronoun) trying to say is that there isn't enough justification for that sort of legal dichotomy.  Either non-theraputic genital cutting on non-consenting children is unethical and worthy of legal sanctions, or it's not.  And both male and female circumcision fall under the category of "non-theraputic genital cutting on non-consenting children."

[DrinkTheElixir]

karaokeboy said:

Ethan, I have nothing but respect for you.

Truly and honestly, nothing but respect.

That being said, this thread (and the article specifically) is about the medical pracitce of circumcision, and to be even more specific, the British Medical Association's 2003 statement.  It's not fair to shut down the discussion of medical ethics on the grounds that someone may get offended.  On a related note, it's also not fair to play religion as a trump card, especially in the public arena where laws, public policy, and ethics are being debated.

I can understand why equating male circumcision with female circumcision upsets you.  I respect your beliefs, but I cannot simply abandon my beliefs in human rights because you have (on this issue) contrasting beliefs.  It's not fair to ask me to do that, especially when the comparison being made is a sound one.

If the discussion is offending you, then ignore it, just as you (or I) would a bunch of Aryan assholes.  I feel that is the most just thing to do.  At the very least, we can agree to disagree and get on with things, right?

The difference is that circumcised men, in the majority of cases are not affected on the same level as women who are circumcised. We are talking major mutilation of female genitalia - which really can not be equated with a medicalized procedure (as  most male circumcisions are) which is, in the most cases safe because of medical regulation and is carried out for a variety of reasons, be it medical or religious reasons.  In the case of female circumcision I can not think of any medical reason for it.  The reasons are purely  oppresive.

In that sense it is like comparing apples with oranges.  Female circumcision is about a more direct control, which is quite an effective one.  Male circumcision is none of those things.  It does not prevent a man having sex, having desire or having his penis disected beyond recognition.

That is why the two procedures can not really be discussed side by side as comparable procedures.  And although my sons are not circumcised and I have strong feelings as to why this is so - I could not and would not use a broad brush and say that male circumcision is unethical - because that is not true.  I chose not to make that decision - but that does not mean that my reasoning is any more superior that someone like Ethan who makes a decision to circumcise any sons that he may have in the future for religious reasons.

As much as I can see what the article is saying I think that it is over simplifying and misrepresenting male circumcision.

[Magnetic North]

karaokeboy said:

What we're (I guess I could use that pronoun) trying to say is that there isn't enough justification for that sort of legal dichotomy.  Either non-theraputic genital cutting on non-consenting children is unethical and worthy of legal sanctions, or it's not.  And both male and female circumcision fall under the category of "non-theraputic genital cutting on non-consenting children."

There is enough legal justification for dichotomy, imho. Pinching a loaf of bread and pulling an armed bank raid are not legally indistinguishable. You can't say "its either robbery or it isn't". The law is a very, very finely textured and carefully worded subject with which broad generalisations do not sit easily. As i've already opined, there's enough room for ethical dichotomy too.

But i also think ethics and the law are quite distinct. Compared with societal belief and practise, ethics really doesn't have much to do with the law at all. And that's a lot to do the fact that one's code of ethics is subjective. Just because someone thinks that homosexuality or eating meat is unethical doesn't mean it should be illegal. Maybe its to do with too much variety of opinion on a particular subject, or tradition, i don't know. Personally, i try to be rational in forming my ethical opinions and, as someone who's an atheist, religious reasons for doing something do not fit into my rational constructs. I guess it comes down to fundamental belief - you either buy into religion or you don't. And i don't. But that's just my opinion.

[karaokeboy]

DrinkTheElixer said:

The difference is that circumcised men, in the majority of cases are not affected on the same level as women who are circumcised. We are talking major mutilation of female genitalia - which really can not be equated with a medicalized procedure (as most male circumcisions are) which is, in the most cases safe because of medical regulation and is carried out for a variety of reasons, be it medical or religious reasons. In the case of female circumcision I can not think of any medical reason for it. The reasons are purely oppresive.

I understand what you're saying.  The problem (one of many) is that the law (in the US and UK) makes no distinction between bloodletting and infibulation.  It's unfair to just say "major mutiliation" = "female" and "minor" = "male" for the same reasons outlined in the article.  The harms deserve unpacking, because they are complex and distinct.

The second problem: you use the term "medicalized" in reference to male circumcision.  "Medicalized" does not equate to "theraputic" or "beneficial."  The amputation of limbs is a "medicalized" practice, but to amputate any person's limbs is not always beneficial or theraputic.  I can refer you to a variety of medical journals if you wish, or you could just re-read the JME paper, the part where it describes the origins of male circumcision in the medical world.

What I'm getting at is that you're entirely wrong to assume that circumcision holds any sort of thereaputic or prophylactic value at all.  It may be medicalized, but FGM has also been done under "medicalized" circumstances.  Neither are thereaputic.  There is a lot of strong, objective evidence showing this.  As the paper states, circumcision has always been a procedure looking for a cure, and it's never found one.

This also brings up the issue under contention, the reason that Fox and Thomson wrote the paper in the first place: Medicine has strict rules when it comes to surgery, especially the amputation of healthy tissue, and especially for children.

There are a variety of criteria, but the principle idea is that the medical professional has an obligation to make sure the needs of the child, not necessarily the parents, are met.  You can take the JWitness example from the article as an example of this principle.

Secondly, they have an obligation to choose procedures that are the most un-invasive.  Circumcision certainly doesn't fall into this category -- it is amputation.

Third, they have an obligation to first do no harm.  In other words, they ought to take the course of action that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit.  With no emprically proven benefits, but several well documented harms, circumcision does not fall into this category either.

In the absence of medical reasons, male circumcision becomes purely a soci-cultural issue, exactly the same as female circumcision.

Now, considering that the justifications for both genital cutting on both genders is exactly the same (in the sense that it's cultural) and that both violate the criteria of proper surrogate consent, it's not a complicated process to come to the conclusion that protecting girls from bloodletting while letting boys suffer while part of their penis is amputated is just a bit hypocritical.

[karaokeboy]

Magnetic North said:

There is enough legal justification for dichotomy, imho. Pinching a loaf of bread and pulling an armed bank raid are not legally indistinguishable. You can't say "its either robbery or it isn't". The law is a very, very finely textured and carefully worded subject with which broad generalisations do not sit easily. As i've already opined, there's enough room for ethical dichotomy too.

But i also think ethics and the law are quite distinct.

First off, medical ethics are different than personal moral beliefs.  They are a uniform, codified set of principles that all persons who are granted certain privileges (like practicing medicine) are obligated to follow.

Second, you can't prove your point with an analogy (especially one that's as unjustified as the one you've presented).  Refer to my post above where I make the point that the (real) justifications for female circumcision and male circumcision are exactly the same.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

You know, when I see an infant (of any gender) with its ears pierced, it bugs me a little. Consent clearly wasn't given by the child. But the bottom line is, it's not my child, and not my business. There is some amount of pain involved with ear piercing. I know this because I  have pierced ears. I can see this is a topic where you feel very strongly karaokeboy, and that's fine. But  I don't agree with the comparisons you're making, nor some of the points in the article you posted. I have been present at circumcisions of male babies, and in no way was there prolonged suffering or mutilation. I do believe that in families where this is an important part of religious faith, I don't have a problem with it. You do, and fair enough, but the fact that you've posted this article doesn't mean it's the final word on the subject. People must make up their own minds on behalf of their children, obviously within the boundaries of safe medical practice.

[karaokeboy]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

You know, when I see an infant (of any gender) with its ears pierced, it bugs me a little. Consent clearly wasn't given by the child. But the bottom line is, it's not my child, and not my business.

Damnit, come on.  Do you use that kind of logic when it comes to FGM?  "Not my child, not my business?"  No, at least I hope not.

So why is it different when the gender of the neonate changes?

Second, ear piercing is different than the amputation of healthy sexual tissue.

Third, human rights are universal.  And kids have them too.  Just because it's not my child doesn't mean she or he doesn't deserve human rights.  Identity does not change principle.

Quote

There is some amount of pain involved with ear piercing. I know this because I have pierced ears. I can see this is a topic where you feel very strongly karaokeboy, and that's fine. But I don't agree with the comparisons you're making, nor some of the points in the article you posted. I have been present at circumcisions of male babies, and in no way was there prolonged suffering or mutilation. I do believe that in families where this is an important part of religious faith, I don't have a problem with it. You do, and fair enough, but the fact that you've posted this article doesn't mean it's the final word on the subject. People must make up their own minds on behalf of their children, obviously within the boundaries of safe medical practice.

*shrug* Whatever.  All sorts of people are free to disagree with learned bioethicists and other professionals.  Hell, if the doctor tells you that you're going to die of cancer, you can ignore him.  Clearly, if you're willing to substitute subjective personal experiences (I feel fine Doc, I can't have cancer) in place of objective, scientific research, then what I say here doesn't matter.  I can't imagine much of what anyone says does.

I mean, you're free to disagree with me.  But it's extremely frustrating that you do it out of impulse and not logic.

[DrinkTheElixir]

The main point for many people is the is the result.  That and I think it is disingenuous to proclaim that circumcision is  'entirely wrong to assume that circumcision holds any sort of thereaputic or prophylactic value at all'.  That is simply not true - I have outlined that fac already.  The fact that the Jewish faith circumcises males has nothing to do with the oppression as it is with females in some parts of the world.  You seem to miss that point consistantly and disregard the reason why your blanket opinion insults some people.  Female circumcision has been used to oppress a gender and is promoted as something entirely different.  That is the issue.  You are not, it appears, addressing the variety of issues that outline this, and at least appeared to be as blinkered as those you seem to be addresseing.  Again we are not talking about the surgical removal of something that defines and expresses sexuality, agree with the procedure or not.  Are you female?  Do you know the difference between  the removal of the foreskin and female circumcision?  Do you know the implications?  I think you do, but gloss over them.

You confuse me, because academically you seem sound (in regards your references) but in regards understanding religion and reasoning behind actions, you are, in my opinion not so understanding.  That is frustrating.