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 lin regards understanding religion and reasoning behind actions, you are, in my opinion not so understanding. That is frustrating.
shown that routine circumcision holds theraputic or prophylactic value, especially not enough to outweigh the harms. If I did, I missed it, and if you did and I missed it, could you show it to me so that I can prove you wrong ;) . At best, you could probably get away with showing that we don't know that there isn't any prophylactic value. I have here on my hard drive several
papers from medical journals that dispell the notion that routine circumcision holds medical benefit enough to outweigh harms.
And before we continue, I'd like to mention again something I said to Ethan, which is that I am concerned first and foremost with circumcision in a medical setting and with regards to medical ethics. This is what the article addresses (the BMA) and this is where all of my arguments have been. While I do have my opinions on religious circumcision, I won't express them here, because I'd rather discuss the more, in my opinion, pressing matter of medical ethics. Meaning: No offense meant to those practicing Islam or Judaism.
So yes, let's aknowledge that people have their religious beliefs and rituals. And in a completely respectful, non-demeaning way, I don't care. I don't care if you're Hindu, Lutheran, Jewish, or atheist. I do care about medical ethics.
The cultural justifications that I'm
pointing to are based in gender identity (hence the masculinity and pain section), not religion (for the overwhelming majority). Most people are not Jewish or Muslim, yet the US has a ridiculously high circumcision rate. Does that make sense what I'm saying?
Maybe I'm still missing the point of what you're saying. I'm trying, I swear.
Maybe I'll say this again: The harms of FGM and MGM deserve to be unpacked because they are distinct and complex. It's shortsighted to just say that one's worse than the other and use that as justification for only outlawing one. And yes, I do know almost as much about FGM as I do MGM. I understand the implications. And it's extremely narrowminded to say that the foreskin isn't "something that defines and expresses sexuality."
I'm saying that both genders deserve protection.
And in regards to religion, there ought to be some reason why the FGM law in the UK and the US specifically
say that simple bloodletting is wrong (even by licensed professionals), yet males are left to fend for themselves. Clearly something is wrong with laws that don't protect both genders equally, no?