German appeals court decides against religious circumcision of children.

Great Debates
361

No. They both involve ablation of genital tissue from non-consenting minors. The sexual effects of female excision may be more devastating than those of male excision, but that doesn’t make them ‘completely different’.

No. Both are done as initiation ceremonies in various cultures, at birth, in childhood or in adolescence. Sometimes religious significance has been attached to both. Both have been justified on the grounds of controlling sexuality. Both attracted support in the Western world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on health grounds.

I would be just as strongly opposed to male excision if female excision never existed. Indeed, while there are a number of cultures globally that practice the male version without cutting females, the reverse doesn’t seem to be true anywhere.

Kirsten Bell has some cogent words about this issue in “Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality”, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 125–148. She writes, “Ultimately, the message is clear: genital mutilation is gendered. These male and female genital operations are not merely seen to differ in degree, they are seen to differ in kind. Thus, despite the heterogeneous voices speaking out against female circumcision, a common thread unites many: all forms of female genital cutting are seen to constitute a sexual mutilation and violation of bodily integrity, and male genital operations are dismissed as benign.”

Please tell me why it’s anti-female to believe that no one has the right to deprive other people the use of their natural genital tissues. Ultimately, no one has the right to declare that part of another’s body has no medical or religious value or may even pose a risk to health and religious formation. Practicing male excision or, for that matter, withholding blood transfusions or other medical care, seem to me more dictatorial than a government banning them.

Two points conceded: yes, female excision is almost always a more severe surgery than male excision. (That doesn’t make the male version morally good or morally neutral.) And if tissues on the body become so horribly diseased or irreparably damaged that they must be removed, parents do have just cause to order a surgery, since younger children likely cannot make a rational choice to accept the death or disability that might result from refusing the operation.

But since possessing a foreskin is not a disease in itself, the thought of removing it should come only as an utterly, truly last resort.

362

Question - would female excision not be as severe if done at birth and with better medical facilities, in the way that male excision is?

363

No, because the overwhelming majority of female excisions include the removal of much more than the equivalent of the prepuce. Technically, the female equivalent of circumcision would be the removal of the clitoridal hood, while female excision is usually the removal of the clitoris itself. Better medical facilities would prevent things like subsequent infections, but wouldn’t make the procedure less mutilating.

364

German government tells Jews, Muslims they will be free to circumcise.

365

Can Merkel ('s spokesperson) just overrule a court decision like that?

366

It makes it as close to “completely different” as makes little difference. Destruction or or removal of the clitoris is so far away from circumcision…I mean, is it only men who just. Don’t. Get it? Because I’ve never in my life heard a woman argue that the two were similar. Is there a basic lack of appreciation of female biology here?

367

As an athiest, I’d just like to say that I’d be pissed if I parents didn’t have me circumcised.

I guess my view would be that the procedure should only be allowed to be performed by doctors, and that if it is going to be forbidden, it should be because the medical profession has decided that it isn’t consistant with the hypocratic oath.

368

Maybe by telling the “authorities” not to enforce it?

369

If that, as I am expecting, was aimed at me, then I am am sorry to burst your bubble. Rather than being sent “stomping off in an angry huff”, I instead went on holiday. My cousin got married in a rather nice castle in Scotland and I just got back today. As you’ll see from my posting history, I haven’t actually posted a single post to this entire forum in the past nine days.

370

No. It’s because a significant amount of female circumcision doesn’t involve the destruction or removal of the clitoris, and that any unnecessary* mutilation of an infant, however minor, is wrong. It seems you don’t get either point.

*“Necessary” in this context means immediate medical need.

371

Of course they’re different. The question is whether the difference matters.

FGM is really really really bad. MGM is just really bad. So the difference doesn’t matter. They’re both bad.

372

A “significant amount?” You mean as in statistically significant? Or as in a large amount? WHO and many others classify the four types of FGM, 3 of them involve removal or potential removal of or damage to the clitoris. Bet you don’t know how many fall into each type.

Don’t try to imply in here that damage to the clitoris is not the outcome a “significant” amount of the time without a citation or some qualifier, and don’t wag your finger at me and say I don’t get it if you’re unwilling to provide even a Wiki link to back up your claim. In fact, you should probably take your personal observations about me to another forum, now.

From: http://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm

No specific breakdown is given between types I and II.
See also Wiki: Prevalence of female genital mutilation - Wikipedia

There’s too much for me to quote without a copyright violation, but anyone can browse the stats in there and see that there are a “profound” number of cases of FGM of the types where clitoris is or is likely to be damaged or removed entirely. Note that when they refer to “prevalence”, they mean within the country, not of the type.

373

I don’t think I responded to this post, and I don’t see a response in the thread, so here goes:

I can argue against male circumcision without “dragging in” FGM. But I’m still dragging in FGM. And the fact that you have a problem with that makes YOU the one with issues.

Of course they aren’t. But they are similar. The discussion of the two so obviously relevant that it’s silly to object to it.

Of course FGM is worse than MGM. But that doesn’t make MGM okay, does it?

It’s a perfectly legitimate topic because both involve genital mutilation of children with religious and cultural aspects, including acceptance in certain cultures based on nothing more than people being used to it, and told it has value, without rational basis. I suggest you examine your own feelings about MGM and think about how little girls feel when confronted with the same attitudes about FGM in their cultures.

Just the opposite. To claim that FGM could be considered unacceptable while MGM could is sexist. How dare you claim that your genitals can’t be cut but a boy’s can simply because boys don’t get cut as much.

374

I also gave a cite above that said exactly the opposite – that only “partial removal of the clitoral hood”, as some where trying to imply, is NOT the most common form. That most of the time, the clitoris itself IS damaged. It was ignored.

375

So Una, would you approve of FGM that did not involve any damage to the clitoris? If it were essentially no more extreme than male circumcision, would that be okay with you? I’m presuming you are okay with male circumcision, but maybe I’m confused.

376

lance strongarm, find exactly WHERE I said I supported male circumcision? Because generally, unless there’s a medical reason, I think it’s unnecessary, and I SAID so already. MY major beef is you comparing something completely different.
Stop moving the goal posts – you said the two were comparable, as HOW IT IS CURRENTLY DONE. Not “what if if it was done this way”.

Cite: (PDF file)

If you can’t argue against male circumcision, MGM, whatever, on it’s own merits, without dragging another issue in, which is done for other reasons, in other areas, and has other consequences.

377

Great Galloping Fuck, no! What the holy hell made you or anyone come to that conclusion?

You presume? On what evidence?

I’m against all genital mutilation, or pretty much* all damaging body modification which is done one someone who is not a consenting, rational, adult who is under no pressure to do so.

  • The exception would be minor things such as ear piercing, where I think non-adult teenagers ought to be able to decide for themselves.
378

The idea discussed at the moment is to pass legislation explicitly legalizing circumcisium for religious reasons. The court’s verdict does not need any enforcing as it was an acquittal. Also in the German system such a decision is not binding on other courts (a Landgericht is the second lowest tier of the 4 tiers of criminal jurispudence)

379

The only reason you are comparing the two is rhetorical - because of widespread condemnation of the practice of FGM, which you are attempting to tap into. That condemnation has occurred exactly because, unlike male circumcision re men, FGM typically has a terrible effect on the health and sexuality of women.

This is a debate tactic that is wearisomely familiar - the most familiar form is in the realm of politics, comparing someone to the Nazis or Communists. ‘Obama’s healthcare plan is obviously similar to that of the Soviet Union - maybe not as bad, but still bad, and bad in the same way. If you object to the comparison, maybe you are a communist’. It depends on emotional reaction via insinuation, not logic or facts. As an argument it is weak. Those who oppose circumcision ought to steer clear of it.

380

This may be difficult to do. My understanding is that the German court based its ruling on its interpretation of European human rights convention adopted by treaty. Assuming that the court correctly interpreted the convention, can national legislation abrogate these rights? Is there a “notwithstanding” type clause, or is a protocol to the treaty itself necessary?