In light of the excellent news that there has finally been a successful conviction for FGM, which should certainly speed up the eradication of this barbaric practice, I got to wondering why it is specifically female GM in the law, and whether that is really defensible in this day and age. I certainly concede that FGM can be much more traumatic than the male equivalent, but given that it is commonly thought that there are between 100 and 200 deaths per year from botched male circumcision (US figures) done for cultural or religious rather than medical reasons to individuals how are by virtue of being infants unable to give informed consent to the procedure, it cannot be thought of as a harmless act. It seems that we have a legislated inequality that surely weakens the moral standpoint of the existing law.

Discuss?

I agree

Ditto.

Yup

You should try having this discussion with Americans, its amazing to them that my knob hasnt rotted off!!

Male circumcision is done for several reasons including religious, cultural and health, according to the NHS there’s evidence to suggest that it reduces the risk of HIV infection.
Whereas fgm not only has no benefits for the woman, it’s brutally detrimental and harmful. It tends to be more specific to certain communities, such as the south east of Nigeria and its diaspora and is not unique to a specific religion

Whilst I agree that circumcision shouldn’t be done to children but only concenting adults it really doesn’t compare in it’s reasons for being done or the brutal effects that it has on the person.

Whilst I agree that circumcision shouldn’t be done to children but only concenting adults it really doesn’t compare in it’s reasons for being done or the brutal effects that it has on the person.

Until one is botched of course.

…we have a legislated inequality that surely weakens the moral standpoint of the existing law.

In what way is there a “legislated inequality”? That’s nonsense.
There’s absolutely nothing to stop you campaigning to end male circumcision, and no reason why an appropriate law could not be introduced if there was sufficient support for the idea.

Male circumcision is done for several reasons including religious, cultural and health,

Okay, so let’s ban it except in cases that are for health reasons or that involve a consenting adult, like ear piercing and tattoos. Reasonable?

…according to the NHS there’s evidence to suggest that it reduces the risk of HIV infection.

Controversial evidence, at best.

I don’t think there is much to discuss. It’s an abborant practice and this is great news. I wish circumcision was seen in the same light. Arguments about cultural and religious reasons are horse crap and even the HIV argument is dodgy…use a condom don’t chop your baby’s foreskin off! At least let them grow to adulthood and make the choice for themselves.

it really doesn’t compare in it’s reasons for being done or the brutal effects that it has on the person.

I dont think anyone is suggesting thats not true.

Is that 100-200 deaths per year in the US, or 100-200 deaths worlwide according to US sources? Because the former sounds like bollox – you say it is ‘commonly thought’ but I doubt that is a consensus view based on solid data – is it?

I mean I agree that infant male circumcision shouldn’t be carried out for no reason like it is in the US, but don’t think reference to FGM is the way to frame the debate – as pointed out male circumcision has some small health benefits in aggregate so how can that be a point of comparison with something medieval like FGM?

In what way is there a “legislated inequality”? That’s nonsense.

In that the legislature refers to females specifically, and makes no reference to male genital mutilation. I’m a little disappointed that that had to be spelled out.

Male circumcision is done for several reasons including religious, cultural and health, according to the NHS there’s evidence to suggest that it reduces the risk of HIV infection.
Whereas fgm not only has no benefits for the woman, it’s brutally detrimental and harmful. It tends to be more specific to certain communities, such as the south east of Nigeria and its diaspora and is not unique to a specific religion

This is entirely correct.

And no, the whole reduction in infection risk for circumcised males is NOT dodgy. I know there are disagreements among medical practitioners, but I have two friends who had to be circumcised as adults due to infection. One of them – a Swede – was on a year long trip in Peru where he developed a non-STI under the foreskin. He was 19. They decided to circumcise, and he says it hurt like hell for a long time afterward.

It was a trend in North America to circumcise boys when I was born, so I, along with all my brothers, was done. And seeing what two of my own little guys have gone through with periodic infections makes me glad I was.

I am not an advocate FOR circumcision for boys, but I would object if people said that it should be outlawed. I think it should still be available as an option.

I, along with all my brothers, was done. And seeing what two of my own little guys have gone through with periodic infections makes me glad I was.

I wasn’t done. I’ve never had an infection of note. My two boys weren’t done. They’ve never had an infection of note. Infant boys have, and will continue to die from having it done. It is unlikely that anybody has died from not having it done, except for in cases of medical necessity.

Strikes me that this archaic practice should be left to the the medical professionals and the consenting adults, and shouldn’t be being inflicted upon babies because of superstition and tribalism, by non medical professionals, without analgesia, any more.

certainly concede that FGM can be much more traumatic than the male equivalent,

They’re not equivalent.

I certainly concede that FGM can be much more traumatic than the male equivalent

https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/

Classification of female genital mutilation
Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways. First and foremost, it is painful and traumatic. The removal of or damage to healthy, normal genital tissue interferes with the natural functioning of the body and can cause several immediate and long-term health consequences. For example, FGM can cause excessive bleeding, swelling of genital tissue and problems urinating, and severe infections that can lead to shock and in some cases, death, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of perinatal deaths.

Eliminating female genital mutilation
cover interagency statement on fgm
An interagency statement – OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO

Download the statement
Communities that practice female genital mutilation report a variety of sociocultural reasons for continuing with it. Seen from a human rights perspective, the practice reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women.

Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. The practice also violates the rights to health, security and physical integrity of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Classification of FGM (2007)
Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons (WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, 1997).

The WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA Joint Statement classified female genital mutilation into four types. Experience with using this classification over the past decade has revealed the need to sub-divide these categories to capture more closely the variety of procedures.

Although the extent of genital tissue cutting generally increases from Type I to III, there are exceptions. Severity and risk are closely related to the anatomical extent of the cutting, including both the type of FGM performed and the amount of tissue that is cut, which may vary between the types.

Type IV comprises a variety of practices that do not involve removal of tissue from the genitals. Though limited research has been carried out on Type IV FGM, in general, these forms appear to be less associated with harm or risk than the types I, II and III, that all involve removal of genital tissue.

Visual Reference and Learning Tool
Female Genital Mutilation: A Visual Reference and Learning Tool for Health Care Professionals
Obstetrics & Gynecology Published Ahead-of-Print – October 06, 2016
The complete typology with sub-divisions is described below:
Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed:
Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only;
Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.
Type II — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations that have been documented, the following subdivisions are proposed:
Type IIa, removal of the labia minora only;
Type IIb, partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora;
Type IIc, partial or total removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora.
Type III — Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation). When it is important to distinguish between variations in infibulations, the following subdivisions are proposed:
Type IIIa, removal and apposition of the labia minora;
Type IIIb, removal and apposition of the labia majora.
Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

In that the legislature refers to females specifically, and makes no reference to male genital mutilation. I’m a little disappointed that that had to be spelled out.

That’s not legislated inequality.

I think what’s being missed here is that male circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure, the foreskin serves no real purpose.
I understand fgm to include removal of the clitoris, this will remove the future adult woman from gaining pleasure from sexual touch and orgasm. It’s absolutely barbaric of course, to deny a person that is to deny their humanity.
Not saying circumsion is wrong, just that’s it different.

My mate got circumcised at the age of 25 because his foreskin was too tight and he couldn’t pull it back even erect. He was literally scared of having sex.

In that situation it makes sense.

For cultural or religious reasons, it doesn’t, imo.

I think what’s being missed here is that male circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure, the foreskin serves no real purpose.

I’m told it does. Apparently the ‘protection’ of the foreskin keeps the gland sensitive so it all feels a bit nicer. Without it you lose sensitivity because the skins toughened up rubbing on your clothes etc.

I’ve never thought about it ’till today, but now I have I’m in favour of letting people choose for themselves at 18, or perhaps a bit older. (Same with FGM – it shouldn’t be illegal for adults, if someone wants to have their body cut up for whatever reason let them.)

And think of the hours of fun playing “how many Smarties can I stuff in my foreskin?” you will deny your child by having him circumcised….

Actually; there’s many different types of FGM, all barbaric and clumsily justified by faith, custom and cultural reasons. It’s certainly true that most FGM is far more barbaric than what we understand to be a western style male circumcision. However, no one, repeat NO ONE tried to argue otherwise. The issue that I feel uncomfortable about with male circumcision is that it occurs, for either no (or dubious) medical reasons, and it happens to infants that CAN NOT CONSENT. We as a society are condoning the cutting of children’s genitals for reasons of custom, faith and tradition, so long as they are boys, and you know, it’s not too traumatic. It’s wrong. Plain wrong.

So far on this thread, we’ve had the ‘didnt do me any harm’ argument (as utilised by the practitioners of FGM, no doubt),
the ‘but FGM is really bad’ argument’ very true but that doesn’t justify male circumcision of infants by priests for no good reason FFS,
the ‘male circumcision is harmless’ argument; well yes if your lucky enough not to be one of the little ones that are accidentally castrated, suffer accidental penile amputation or die from blood loss I suppose that’s true (no wait; you’ve taken away flesh without consent, that’s not okay), and
the ‘it’s not done to inhibit sexual pleasure so it’s not so bad’ argument; well actually there’s a HEAP of evidence to suggest that’s a massive motivator for doing it, at least historically, and maybe still in some parts of the world.

Any I’ve missed?

My mate got circumcised at the age of 25 because his foreskin was too tight and he couldn’t pull it back even erect. He was literally scared of having sex.

In that situation it makes sense.

Even then there are much less traumatic alternatives. But the main thing is that your mate was an adult, and able to give informed consent for the procedure. Something denied to many millions of infants, male and female, in the name of barbaric faith and cultural custom.

I think what’s being missed here is that male circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure, the foreskin serves no real purpose.

By that logic removing a baby’s big toenail is fine too. Maybe it is, but what’s the harm in letting the baby grow up and choose for itself?

I think what’s being missed here is that male circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure, the foreskin serves no real purpose.

It apparently does. Mate had his done in his early 30s after a ripped banjo string. He was very sensitive for a while afterwards and would arrive too soon as a result. This wore off eventually and then he became very desensitised compared to before circumcision.

Whereas fgm not only has no benefits for the woman, it’s brutally detrimental and harmful.

Whilst I certainly and wholeheartedly agree, others don’t. The female gynaecologist Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid, for example, states;

It takes away excessive libido from women

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.

It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections

It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

I’m perfectly happy to call bollocks on the above, but it sounds awfully like some of the justifications for male circumcision to me…

Sauce

I think what’s being missed here is that male circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure, the foreskin serves no real purpose.

Of course it serves a puropse, it acts like a bearing for one thing which improves sex for both parties and it protects the bellend for another.

http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life

It appears that a pretty small percentage of UK males are now circumcised as children (under 5%?) and the numbers are falling, so I don’t think you’ll find much opposition to the idea that it is unnecessary and undesirable to chop bits off healthy kids.
Your original question was “…why it is specifically female GM in the law, and whether that is really defensible in this day and age.”?
The original legislation was passed in 1985. I would assume that if there had been an attempt to introduce legalisation that banned all forms of genital mutilation for both genders, there is no way it would have passed (because of the greater numbers of people who favour male circumcision for long established cultural and religious reasons). So you would have ended up with no protection against FGM for women.
As I said, there’s nothing to prevent the introduction of legislation against male circumcision, but I think it would be an uphill battle. I don’t think any country has completely banned it.

I wonder which type of FGM that gynaecologist is talking about, because it’s definitley not this.

BBC Anatomy of female genital mutilation

In its most severe form, after removing the sensitive clitoris, the genitals are cut and stitched closed so that the woman cannot have or enjoy sex.

A tiny piece of wood or reed is inserted to leave a small opening for the necessary flow of urine, and monthly blood when she comes of age (most FGM is carried out on infants or young girls before they reach puberty).

When she is ready to have sex and a baby, she is “unstitched” – and then sewn back up again after to keep her what is described by proponents as “hygienic, chaste and faithful”.

I wonder which type of FGM that gynaecologist is talking about, because it’s definitley not this.

No shit. She’s a loony, if she even exists. But her points are analogous with those made defending male infant circumcision.

I think it should still be available as an option.

Whereas fgm not only has no benefits for the woman, it’s brutally detrimental and harmful.

If we are defending circumcision because…..

Clitoridectomy can have perfectly valid medical applications as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoridectomy

I have a low tolerance for stupid bullshit, so I find myself in agreement with the OP.

30,000 nerve endings are severed/removed with circumcision (source: a neurologist on Woman’s Hour, R4). Who says it doesn’t reduce pleasure? American puritans inflicted it on their boys for precisely that reason. Religion poisons everything.

I’ve had this conversation a few times in the past. I’m wholeheartedly with the OP. In the USA circumcision is carried out, in the main, purely for aesthetic reasons. And this is done to infant boys, without their consent. So this is simply cosmetic surgery except in circumstances where it is deemed medically necessary. What would be the thoughts if infant girls were given, say, lip fillers or botox? Still ok?

I suppose it was inevitable that stwers would try to make this issue about men.

It apparently does. Mate had his done in his early 30s after a ripped banjo string. He was very sensitive for a while afterwards and would arrive too soon as a result. This wore off eventually and then he became very desensitised compared to before circumcision.

Why is it always a mate ? A mate does this, A mate says that, my mate can do wheelies ner, ner,nernernerr !

Maybe my lack of any useful input is due to my lack of mates.

I totally agree with OP and most here. In a world of soap and hygiene there’s np need to be hacking at the genitals of infants of any gender.

I suppose it was inevitable that stwers would try to make this issue about men.

It’s not. It’s really not. It’s about children of any gender having the right to not have lumps of flesh chopped off them for reasons of superstition and ancient custom. I think that’s fair enough. The only place that gender comes into it is in that I pondered whether it’s right that the legislation was gender specific, when it probably should apply to children across the board. I was also interested in challenging accepted opinion, because I don’t think that ‘because we’ve always done it that way’ is ever an excuse for assaulting an infant.

I totally agree with OP and most here. In a world of soap and hygiene there’s np need to be hacking at the genitals of infants of any gender.

absolutely

When she is ready to have sex and a baby, she is “unstitched” – and then sewn back up again after to keep her what is described by proponents as “hygienic, chaste and faithful”.

‘presumably they were stitched up to stop the rapists.So what is it with all these people that believe shes asking to be raped if she shows her face,why do they think every man loses control of himself if a female is present?
So who are all these beasts?
They lock their women away so you can never see them,in case you get so excited that you are forced to rape them. They expect you to live in a world without any normal female interaction?

I suppose it was inevitable that stwers would try to make this issue about men.

It’s not. It’s really not.

But that’s how you’re coming across. There’s a reason world health organisations stopped using the term ‘female circumcision’. Use of the word “mutilation” emphasizes the gravity of the act and reinforces that the practice is a violation of women’s and girls’ basic human rights.