Category: FGM

Flawed Circumcision Defense: Mitchell Warren

Mitchell Warren, the Executive Director of AVAC, penned an essay at the Huffington Post titled The “Best Hope” for AIDS Vaccine Advocacy. If it was just that, it would be fine. It’s not just that because it never is, although it takes digging beyond the article itself to find the problem.

He begins this essay about searching for an HIV AIDS vaccine:

There is growing global momentum behind the call to begin to end the AIDS epidemic using the scientifically-proven options available today. These include voluntary medical male circumcision, antiretroviral therapy (ART) — which dramatically reduces risk of HIV transmission between stable sexual partners — and prevention of pediatric infection during pregnancy, delivery and breastfeeding. If taken to scale with resources and urgency, these core components of combination prevention, along with other key prevention interventions, can save lives, prevent new infections and lower the price tag for the global AIDS response over the long term.

Well, sure, if we’re talking voluntary medical [sic] male circumcision, there isn’t an immediate problem. Such a strategy works to re-enforce and extend infant male circumcision in the long-term, and that needs to be addressed. But, by itself, voluntary medical¹ non-therapeutic male circumcision is a choice an individual may make for himself.

That’s never where it ends. AVAC describes itself (emphasis added):

Founded in 1995, AVAC is a non-profit organization that uses education, policy analysis, advocacy and a network of global collaborations to accelerate the ethical development and global delivery of AIDS vaccines, male circumcision, microbicides, PrEP and other emerging HIV prevention options as part of a comprehensive response to the pandemic.

Its focus on ethics is so robust that it randomly drops voluntary from “voluntary medical male circumcision” on its circumcision page. Its focus on ethics is so sincere that AVAC once issued a press release quoting Mr. Warren supporting:

“Research and dialogue are also needed now to explore the feasibility of rolling out infant circumcision. This approach will not show immediate benefits in terms of HIV incidence but can minimize risks and could be a highly cost-effective implementation strategy over the long term.”

To be fair, that press release is more than five years old. But the site also includes a link to a 2010 paper co-written by Brian Morris titled, “The case for boosting infant male circumcision in the face of rising heterosexual transmission of HIV”. And the Women’s HIV Prevention Tracking Project (WHiPT), a collaborative initiative of AVAC and the ATHENA Network, released a report (pdf) in December 2010 titled “Making Medical Male Circumcision Work for Women”. Question: why is voluntary missing in voluntary medical male circumcision? The report, as suggested by the missing “Voluntary”, is full of YAY INFANT CIRCUMCISION. For example, on page 9, under Next Steps for WHIPT Advocacy based on the findings:

Over the next year, WHiPT teams will execute advocacy plans based on their findings. Actions include:

  • …
  • Investigating the benefits and disadvantages of infant male circumcision

So, AVAC’s notion of ethics includes the ability for one person to “volunteer” another person for non-therapeutic surgery. I’m not surprised. It’s page on ethics includes:

The term ethics addresses ideas of right and wrong and with moral duty and obligation. Research ethics address “rights” and “wrongs” surrounding research that uses human participants to find answers to scientific questions. The primary focus of ethics guidelines for research in humans is safeguarding the rights, dignity, and health of the trial participant.

What about the ethics of applying the findings of research to non-consenting, healthy individuals? That is also a valid question that AVAC is apparently willing to ignore. Or should I read its position to mean these ethically-developed strategies are to be applied globally without further concern for ethics in applying those strategies? My analysis would be irrelevant in that reading. Of course, AVAC would still be very unethical, but my analysis would be wrong. I’m not that cynical, so I don’t read it that way. Onward.

The WHiPT report continues with its recommendations for Kenya (page 15):

The Ministry of Health should consider the integration of MMC for infants into the maternal and child health facilities, given the long-term benefits as well as the safe and inexpensive nature of the procedure.

I’ll ask again: why is the “V” missing in VMMC? Of course it wouldn’t make sense when talking about infant circumcision because that’s not voluntary. But the ethical position is to drop infant circumcision, not voluntary. The latter is just a matter of convenience in pursuit of an improperly-stated goal. (An improperly-stated goal could also be called “lying”.)

In its Uganda findings (page 55):

Almost one-third of the respondents said they would circumcise their infant boys if MMC were protective against HIV (33.3 percent for Kampala and 27.8 percent for Kapchorwa).

From its conclusion and recommendations for Uganda (page 57):

From the documentation, it is clear that women are aware of traditional/religious male circumcision but have little knowledge of MMC and its benefits to them. On the same note, women are not empowered in decisionmaking around MMC—with either their spouses or their infants. Policy makers should consider the social and gender implications of MMC in the community, if it is to be appreciated and beneficial to both men and women.

MMC acceptability and use in communities revolves around promotion, advocacy and sensitization efforts undertaken by the government, implementers and advocates.

  • Government and advocates must provide increased sensitization of women, with enough clear information about MMC before the community is prepared for its uptake.
  • Government, advocates and community leaders need to address the myths and bring facts about MMC with evidence-based information to communities.
  • Government and implementers must develop an MMC package that will integrate sexual and reproductive health with gender equity and empower women to get involved in decision-making, especially on condom use.
  • Implementers must impart knowledge and skills in decision-making regarding the circumcision of their male infants.

The “V” is missing everywhere. I’m starting to think the “V” key must be broken on every keyboard AVAC to which AVAC has access. That, or they only care about circumcision without regard to the ethics of voluntary action.

For further demonstration of the point, from the findings and recommendations surrounding the conflation of voluntary medical male circumcision and female genital mutilation, the report states (page 8):

• Advocates must monitor efforts to clarify the distinction between MMC and FGM.

There are distinctions in degree, which is what the researchers intend as proof that the difference is in kind. They are wrong, but temporarily, let’s accept their mistake as valid. Even with that requirement, there is one distinction between MMC and FGM that can’t be made, despite the group’s expectation that this distinction is obvious. Neither MMC nor FGM is voluntary. Both are forced on the recipient (i.e. victim) by another person. If the recommendation focused on the difference between VMMC and FGM, then the distinction would blink in neon. But they can’t include that because the entire premise of infant circumcision requires a complete rejection of the ethics of voluntary without regard for the defensibility of that rejection.

Basically, it’s clear that AVAC cares about the ethics of circumcision only as far as it’s useful in pushing circumcision. Where ethics permit circumcision, the concept matters. Where ethics reject circumcision, just drop the “V”. Circumcision is an AVAC objective, not ethical circumcision.

¹ I strike medical because the term advocates are looking for is medicalized, or something implying a sterile facility with modern surgical tools. I assume medical is also meant to convey the pursuit of potential benefits, but that too conveniently omits the ethical aspect of non-therapeutic circumcision. Thus, I have no interest in promoting loose wording.

Lawsuits as Strategy

I resisted commenting on this story. I don’t think it’s worth our time as activists for several reasons. One, the petitioner, Dean Cochrun, is an inmate in prison for kidnapping. He’s not exactly a sympathetic individual, even though I agree with the gist of his claim. Two, He’s representing himself. He’s going to make a mess of this, on the off chance it proceeds beyond his initial filing. I read his self-written complaint to judge it. I’m not an attorney so I’m not sufficiently qualified in much of the debate. Still, it’s clear how unfocused and emotional his claim is, when there’s a legitimate approach based on objective facts about circumcision and the unethical disparate treatment of healthy boys and girls. We can do better.

There are some relevant topics to discuss, though, which are brought out in this report by Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. at FindLaw. (Again, the caveat applies that I’m addressing these concerns from a layman’s perspective.)

Can circumcision rob you of your, uh, “sexual prowess”?

A South Dakota man thinks so, which is why he has filed a federal circumcision lawsuit against the hospital where he was born. He claims he only recently learned of his missing foreskin, and that doctors misled his mother into believing the procedure was medically necessary.

This is a fair reading of the complaint, but I don’t think it’s complete to say the he claims doctors misled only his mother. Mr. Cochrun wrote “Unknown Doctor who performed this procedure had misled my mother by failing to inform her that there are no medically necessary reasons for performing this procedure and so by the Unknown Doctors acts or omissions I was permanently and irreversibly scarred and deformed.” In the next two sentences he wrote: “By doing so the Unknown Doctor infringed upon the rights of my mother, father, and self. My mother and father were unable to make an informed decision because they were not provided with the facts necessary.” He references both his parents. This speaks to my claim that his suit is unfocused and poorly structured.

His argument is also problematic because it implies that parents have a right to impose non-therapeutic genital cutting if they’re sufficiently informed. They don’t, partly because they can’t be. The only rights involved in non-therapeutic genital cutting, those that were violated, belong to Mr. Cochrun. That should be the approach for any lawsuit, even if arguing that parents are insufficiently informed of the harms and risks of circumcision is a path to the inevitable, eventual recognition of genital integrity for all children.

Ms. Rabiner’s analysis continues, after a bit of laughing because of his name (an immature aside suggesting she hasn’t quite applied a sufficient openness to the general claims represented within Mr. Cochrun’s suit):

Cochrun, 28, is currently in prison on a kidnapping conviction, according to the Associated Press. This may explain why he had both the time to file such a strange lawsuit and why he only recently became aware that he was lacking in the foreskin department.

Unnerved by this revelation, he now claims he “was robbed of sensitivity during sexual intercourse.” The circumcision lawsuit further states that he lost “the sense of security and well-being I am entitled to in my person.”

Whether or not Mr. Cochrun is truthful in his claim, I do not find it difficult to believe that someone would not know he is circumcised (or intact). It’s common, as demonstrated in studies and anecdotal reports. Culture is weird in many ways. Dismissing such a revelation because it contradicts an assumption suggests we should check the assumption.

But, to the analysis within her post (link in original):

This is all well and good — and a little sad, to be honest — but it’s almost certain that a judge will toss Dean Cochrun’s suit. Here’s why:

  1. Consent. Cochrun was an infant when he was snipped, which means his mother had the legal right to consent to the procedure. There’s no indication that doctors lied to her.
  2. Statute of limitations. Personal injury lawsuits can’t be filed 28 years after the events in question. Sure, some states may toll – or pause – the clock and only restart it when the victim first learns of the injury. But it’s highly unlikely Cochrun didn’t know he was circumcised.
  3. Lack of jurisdiction. Cochrun lives in South Dakota. The hospital he is suing is in South Dakota. He has filed a state law tort claim. He filed his circumcision lawsuit in federal court. Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear his claim.
As to this third point, even if Dean Cochrun re-filed his circumcision lawsuit in state court, the first two points will still apply. His lawsuit will undoubtedly be cut short.

In reverse order… The last point is the key here, which I didn’t process on my first reading. (Give me an ‘F’ in Civil Procedure, I suppose.) But, yes, that’s the best defense of my request not to get behind this suit or make too much of it. But even if he refiled in a state court, my opinion doesn’t change.

On the second point, from the included link:

… A child or a person with a mental illness is regarded as being incapable of initiating a legal action on her own behalf. Therefore, the time limit will be tolled until some fixed time after the disability has been removed. For example, once a child reaches the age of majority, the counting of time will be resumed. …

If this South Dakota code is what would apply in state court and I read it correctly¹, the clock began on Mr. Cochrun’s 18th birthday and ran out on his 19th birthday. Arguing that this suit is faulty because he filed 28 years after his circumcision seems to be incorrect. It should be that he filed 9 years too late. For purposes here, I’m granting that Mr. Cochrun’s “[m]ere ignorance of the existence of a cause of action” did not toll the statute of limitations because “the facts could have been learned by inquiry or diligence”, even though I’ve already demonstrated that it’s possible he may not have known his circumcision status until recently. Whether or not it’s true, it could be. It deserves serious consideration, even if it doesn’t change the conclusion on Mr. Cochrun’s claim.

Speaking of what deserves serious consideration, the correct consent argument relevant to non-therapeutic child circumcision is not presented in Ms. Rabiner’s analysis. I have no doubt that she’s correct that the consent involved rests on legal rather than right. It’s also probably nuanced and complicated with a long history in the common law. But that’s what needs to change. It already has with respect to female minors, so the notion that parents have a right to surgically alter (i.e. harm) a healthy child, but only a male child, is odd and needs to be relegated to the past as a relic of flawed, inexcusable human thinking. If it’s a right, it’s a right against all healthy children, not just male children. Any continued defense of a discriminatory distinction as a parental right is a problematic continuation of our shallow, uncritical thinking on the harm of circumcision. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is either wrong or it’s not.

The best way to achieve full protection of genital integrity and bodily autonomy is through cultural change. It’ll be the most likely to last. But that’s slow, and real individuals have their rights violated while that change develops. Thus, other methods are valid to achieve the same result. Next best is to have elected officials extend the protection we provide to everyone but male minors to male minors, as well. Given how likely that is(n’t), other options are necessary. Which leaves us with lawsuits. The courts are (hopefully) an impartial place to work out these issues to respect the rights of all individuals. Punishing those who violate the rights (and bodies) of children, even if punishment occurs only in civil court, will circle back as an incentive on cultural change. The idea of Mr. Cochrun’s lawsuit is spot on, even where it’s execution is misguided and flawed.

¹ Any lawyers who may read this, please don’t be afraid to correct me on this.

Fact Sheet

The WHO fact sheet on FGM is excellent, for what it does. I’ve modified and condensed it below into a universal, concise fact sheet on genital mutilation that respects equal human rights for all (male, female, and intersex) individuals.

Genital Mutilation

Key facts

  • Genital mutilation (GM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the genital organs of a non-consenting individual for non-medical (i.e. non-therapeutic) reasons.
  • GM is a violation of human rights.

Genital mutilation (GM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external genitalia of a non-consenting individual, or other injury to the genital organs of a non-consenting individual for non-medical (i.e. non-therapeutic) reasons.

GM is recognized internationally as a violation of human rights. It reflects deep-rooted inequality, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against children. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Procedures

Genital mutilation is classified as:

  • Any surgical interventions or harmful procedures to the healthy genitalia of a non-consenting individual for non-medical (i.e. non-therapeutic) purposes

No therapeutic benefits, only harm

GM has no objective, immediate therapeutic health benefits, and it harms individuals in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of the individual’s body.

Universal Excuses for Genital Cutting

The AAP’s policy on female genital mutilation offers an interesting comparison to the defense Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz attempted for the “moral” case in favor of circumcision. The AAP’s policy contains this within the “Cultural and Ethical Issues” section:

Kopelman has summarized four additional reasons proposed to explain the custom of FGM: 1) to preserve group identity; 2) to help maintain cleanliness and health; 3) to preserve virginity and family honor and prevent immorality; and 4) to further marriage goals, including enhancement of sexual pleasure for men. Preservation of cultural identity has been noted by Toubia to be of particular importance for groups who have previously faced colonialism and for immigrants threatened by a dominant culture. FGM is endemic in poor societies where marriage is essential to the social and economic security for women. FGM becomes a physical sign of a woman’s marriageability, with social control exercised over her sexual pleasure by clitorectomy and over reproduction by infibulation.

The italicized theories are quite similar to the justifications Rabbi Yanklowitz proposed. But there’s more:

When parents request a ritual genital procedure for their daughter, they believe that it will promote their daughter’s integration into their culture, protect her virginity, and thereby guarantee her desirability as a marriage partner. Parents are often unaware of the harmful physical consequences of the custom, because the complications of FGM are attributed to other causes and rarely discussed outside of the family. Furthermore, parents may feel obligated to request the procedure because they believe their religion requires female genital alteration.

The alleged moral and ethical distinction between female and male genital cutting is a fantasy. They are the same violation, often for the same reasons. There is no defense for permitting tradition and potential medical benefits to excuse this violation for one gender. It’s all non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual.

An Example Disproves the “Moral Case for Circumcision”

Flimmaker Eli Ungar-Sargon (Cut) has an excellent post on Rabbi Smuly Yanklowitz’s flawed essay I wrote about earlier this week. He rejects Rabbi Yanklowitz’s arguments for many of the same reasons I did. Read it because it’s worth your time, as Eli’s thinking always is. Here I want to excerpt part of the background and context Eli provides. It’s important.

In the interests of full disclosure, Rabbi Yanklowitz is a member of one of the Jewish communities that I belong to here in Los Angeles and I have a cordial relationship with him. He is the founder of Uri L’Tzedek, a wonderful Jewish group that is devoted to social justice issues. This is remarkable in so far as Orthodox Jews have historically not been as involved with social justice as Jews from the more Liberal movements are. Rabbi Yanklowitz’s commitment to both Orthodoxy and progressive causes makes him something of a rare bird, which demonstrates a moral courage and awareness that few Orthodox Rabbis can manage. And yet, here he is trying to defend the indefensible.

Yanklowitz begins his article by declaring that he is someone who believes that mitzvot, religious commandments, have an ethical foundation. Taken literally, this statement is obviously false. There are a number of commandments that historically required Jews to commit acts of genocide and there are many other ethical problems with the structure of Jewish law (the status of women comes to mind as an obvious example). But the rabbi should not be taken literally here. What he means by this statement is two things. First, that he is not a fundamentalist, because he believes that human agency is a necessary part of religious interpretation and practice. Second, in his personal hermeneutics, ethics play an important role in shaping religious interpretation and practice. The rub, of course, is how one deals with situations in which morality conflicts with the Jewish tradition. Circumcision is an apparent, and I argue actual, instance of such a conflict. Yanklowitz seems to be trying to argue here that circumcision is not such an instance. …

**********

Related to Rabbi Yanklowitz’s essay, I found a quote I’d like to highlight. In a Q&A with Soraya Mire, a human rights activist and survivor of female genital mutilation, she states:

[Q.] Your father, a general under the military dictator and former Somali president Mohamed Siad Barre, objected to FGM. Why do you think your mother insisted the mutilation be performed?

A. Not only did Father witness the suffering of my sisters but he understood the backward cultural mindset and conformity in the face of violating a child’s bodily integrity. The institution of marriage is the focal point for mothers, and FGM allows them to prepare their daughters’ future security. In my case, Mother was so worried about securing my worth and marriageability that she didn’t consider the unbearable pain she was inflicting on me. FGM is physically and psychologically traumatic to any child and, yet, we have surviving mothers, like my own, who refuse to acknowledge this cultural torture, let alone feel or address their own pain. They became branded lambs with sutured lips as they watched our bodies ripped open like curtains. They had no power to stop the actions of those cruel hands or condemn the violation of our human rights. To them, this reckless ritual, called a “rite of passage,” was justified because the tradition must continue in order to preserve our virginity and, therefore, the family honor. It’s time to address the damage that is done to millions of women, along with the violation of their basic human rights. The atrocity must stop and we must do whatever it takes to bring an end to this ancient genital mutilation.

Compare that to Rabbi Yanklowitz’s argument on “Parental Values and Social Acceptance” (i.e. cultural conformity):

… Not circumcising a Jewish boy may hinder his social acceptance and his chances of finding a Jewish spouse. The overwhelming majority of Jewish women look for a mate who is circumcised. It would be cruel to prevent a man from potentially finding a suitable mate. …

As I wrote, this is a claim commonly made in defense of female genital cutting. In Ms. Mire’s answer we have the same scenario presented by Rabbi Yanklowitz, with only the gender changed. There is no compelling reason why this defense is acceptable for male genital cutting. Gender is irrelevant in the ethical/moral case against non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting individuals.

The New York Times Links to a Fetish Site

Update: It’s been pointed out that the link within the New York Times story is broken. It’s missing the “www” from the link, an understandable mistake. So, the paper linked incorrectly to Circlist. The proper conclusion is that the editors failed to fact-check in addition to not checking source credibility rather than the pathetic implication that they didn’t link to a fetish site. I missed this because I started at Internet Archive and worked backwards.

I’ve noted it throughout, but almost every link after the first paragraph of this post is NSFW.

Last month the Washington Post ran a commercial masquerading as an editorial. Today, the New York Times follows suit, but ups the offensiveness in an unexpected – and unacceptable – manner. The article is another regurgitation for the PrePex device, so I won’t quote any of the related nonsense. The largest problem is at the end of the advertisement.

Dr. [Jason] Reed said he had heard that another device, Ali’s Klamp, was being tested in Kenya under protocols that seemed to match W.H.O. requirements. According to Circlist.com, a circumcision information Web site, it is a Turkish device dating to 2007, and works on principles similar to those of the Tara KLamp and another device, the SmartKlamp, approved by the F.D.A. in 2004.

I removed the hyperlink from the excerpt because – unlike the New York Times – I refuse to link to a pro-circumcision fetish site. But it is instructive. It demonstrates how uninterested the New York Times is in logic and ethics. The story doesn’t seem to rely on Circlist for any specific facts since, again, this piece is merely a commercial. That doesn’t make the site’s inclusion in the commercial, with a direct link in the online version, any less problematic.

With any effort, a “journalist” like Donald G. McNeil, Jr. could presumably uncover the bias of Circlist. For example, from its “Considering Circumcision” page, this Editorial Comment:

It used to be the case that the argument between the pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision lobby groups was an argument of opinion versus opinion. That is no longer the case. The pro-circ groups (CIRCLIST included) now have proven scientific fact on their side, whereas the anti-circ groups continue to rely on a less tangible line of reasoning based primarily on the morality of genital integrity – especially as regards child circumcisions. Of necessity they have, in the main, quietly dropped their assertions that the science is bunk.

The reasonable response a journalist might have is to ask what part the health of the child at the time of circumcision indicates. Whether or not the science is valid or bunk is secondary. The application of that science to a healthy (also science) child’s genitals is the ethical/moral question. In the analysis, ethics > science.

In other locations, Circlist believe[s/d] that “Parental Request” is an indicator for circumcision. (And a tight foreskin, and a long foreskin, and a loose foreskin. As long as the end result is YAY CIRCUMCISION…) But, since the child is healthy, that informs the morality involved. Circlist is like most pro-circumcision propagandists. The potential benefits supposedly demonstrate that it is ethical, as opposed to being merely a piece of information. Because it can possibly impart something does not make it ethical. If it did, prophylactic surgery of any type on children would be ethical. That’s stupid.

Any length of time spent on Circlist would reveal the depth of its bias (and kink), which at the least requires some offsetting balance if it’s going to be a source for the New York Times. The challenge is in finding out what the members of Circlist believe. Sometimes, they tell you. On the site today:

FIANCÉE GIVES HUSBAND-TO-BE AN EROTIC CIRCUMCISION

The following text is a work of fiction written by an anonymous contributor living in North America. The story involves a Do-it-Yourself circumision. CIRCLIST recommends that you do not mimic the scenes described. Circumcision should only be carried out by a qualified medical practitioner.

There are more at the link I’m not providing. Advocates who’ve been involved in this topic for more than a few years are familiar with what else the site contains and/or contained. Contained is the key I want to focus on now. The current site has been scrubbed of some material, but the Internet Archive reveals its not-lost secrets. (Remaining links are from March 25, 2008, a date picked at random.) Such as more stories and pictures that are very much NSFW, although I don’t recommend the NSFW link. The subject is “Foreskin Has Erotic Purpose For Some”. That’s a way of saying there’s still a circumcision to be done that can generate sexual excitement, not that maybe the foreskin should stay.

Next, (NSFW):

As for infant circs, I am sure, since you are circ-obsessive or you wouldn’t belong to this club, you’ve seen your share of adults circumcised as babies. Many of their scars are quite extensive and, dare I say it, ugly. From the sulcus down to the shaft skin it’s bumpy, red and sometimes looks quite sore. Whether it is sore or not, I can’t say. Also, when the frenulum has been removed, the raw area left in the wake of the surgery can look quite angry. Some guys say that this is still their most sensitive area on their penises, as is mine, even though I instructed the doc to leave mine alone. The worst consequence of these infant circs without sutures is the skin bridge (see photo at right). Sometimes the inner foreskin edge doesn’t grow to join to the shaft skin edge. It turns back on itself and joins with the corona of the glans. From all accounts this bridge can be benign or very painful in sex.

Notice that they are happy to publish that they’re circ-obsessive at the same time they publish a clear explanation that circumcision causes problems. (The corresponding picture and others show circumcision fits the definition of mutilation, especially when forced on another.) Yet, they think the moral question of imposing this on healthy children is essentially a non-issue. Why would anyone trust them to be a good judge of ethics?

Finally, if you click to Circlist today, you’ll find a very different view of female genital cutting than in the past. More on that in a moment. But what’s interesting is how they currently differentiate between female genital cutting and female genital mutilation. They don’t think the distinction is what you think it is.

Female Circumcision (“Femcirc”): Surgery that modifies the female genitalia in ways likely to be accepted by a neutral observer as enhancing the quality of a woman’s sexual experience.

Female Genital Mutilation (“FGM”): Surgery that modifies the female genitalia in ways likely to be accepted by a neutral observer as reducing the quality of a woman’s sexual experience.

The consent of the female isn’t discussed. It’s merely whether a “neutral observer” thinks the cutting “enhances” the sexual experience. They are not endorsing a view that females have a right to their bodies, just that someone else’s perceived benefits to sexuality is a valid reason to cut. They discard the moral question of non-therapeutic male genital cutting, which is unsurprising. But they discard the moral question of non-therapeutic female genital cutting, as well, in spite of its clear position within the Western world. They’re not arbiters of ethics and human rights, yet they’re quoted in the New York Times. Why?

All of that is offensive, but their past interest was more involved. (NSFW) From “Cindy (USA)”:

I recently had my clitoral hood removed (female circumcision) to improve sensitivity and cleanliness as it was such a long hood. I had some pain during healing, but that has been minimal. Healing has been rapid.

The glans clitoris has slowly increased in size since the operation. The sensitivity is also there and my ability to orgasm has increased be cause of it.

I think that all women should consider have their hoods removed as it would aid in cleanliness of the area and grreatly improving orgasm! I’m totally satisfied!
…

Next:

Photos of my girlfriend Lisa, before and after her circumcision are attached. She previously had her clitty hood circumcised, and now her lips. I think she looks much better, don’t you?

Finally, from “French Couple Advocates Both Male and Female Circumcision”:

We are a French couple , 32 years old, from Metz, in the east of France. I am Pascale (wife), my husband is Marc. We have 3 children, 2 girls, one boy.

We are strongly interested in male AND female circumcision, especially female because male circumcision is not a problem for us. My husband has been circumcised (well circumcised) for 3 years.

Marc (my husband) has a very tight circumcision with the frenulum completely removed. It was done 3 years ago, voluntarily, and without any medical reason, only to be very clean and erotic (I write my opinion!) Marc is very happy.

Mathieu (my son) also has a very tight circumcision, frenulum completely removed. We had him circumcised completely at birth. He is now 3 years old and his circumcision looks very good.

Unhappily I am not not yet circumcised, but I WANT it. We are searching information, testimonies, addresses for my female circumcision. I think that female circumcision is analogous to male circumcision and is also necessary to the couple’s sex live. I think it should be better to allow female circumcision . I am now speaking about cutting the hood and the labia minora. I am also searching for information about the complete cutting of the clitoris.

When I was 19 y o, I had a (girl) friend that told to me that she was cut off like an African woman: She had lived in UpperVolta (now Burkina Faso), with her parents, and her mother thought it was a good practice to be cut: All the females of the family were cut in a local hospital by a nurse. She had no regrets and was not ashamed to be a White French Excised woman. She showed me the result of the operation. I thought I would like to be like her.

Last years in Cap d’Agde, a huge naturist town in the south of France , we saw a couple of smooth circumcised Dutch: They had no pubic hair (like us), and the wife had her nipples pierced with rings. Also her clitoris was pierced and had no hood and was ever protruding. She had no labia minora. I want absolutely to be cut and pierced like her.

Circlist is a fetish site. It’s present is tamer than its past, but the underpinning is still there. Yet, today they’re being quoted by the New York Times. The paper, its editors, and McNeil should be embarrassed.

Flawed Circumcision Defense: LZ Granderson

The editorial I analyze in this post is several weeks old now, but it’s been referenced elsewhere a few times. It’s worth a response.

LZ Granderson wrote an editorial at CNN on the proposal in San Francisco to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. It’s an embarrassing piece, largely because Mr. Granderson never considers the healthy child as an individual who might not want to be circumcised.

Once he gets going:

Besides the measure having no provision for religious practices — thereby making it unconstitutional — …

This is armchair lawyering, and easily refuted. There are the merits of the First Amendment and parental rights, which are summarized quite well in these two posts at The Volokh Conspiracy from last week. The religious freedom to act on another is a lot more complicated than simply claiming a religious requirement. There are competing rights involved, including a right to be free from unnecessary harm that is not yet adequately (or equally) protected. Mr. Granderson’s dismissal is flawed. It doesn’t disqualify his opinion, but it suggests the level of research he has (not) performed on this topic.

We chuckle, but from interracial marriage to masturbation, politicians have been trying to tell us what to do with our genitalia for centuries. …

Here, parents are telling their sons what to do with their genitalia. If the male does not want his genitals altered, his genitals are still altered. Since his body has been violated, what difference is it to him that his parents did it than if his government had ordered it? The proposed government involvement leaves that choice to individuals rather than dictates how he must be, which is what parents have been doing for more than a century in the U.S. Proposals like this that protect individual rights possess the stronger liberty position.

I get the science behind not having the procedure done: There are nerve endings that are being severed during the procedure, and it is normally not medically required. But generally speaking it has not been proven to be medically harmful either, though there have been rare occasions of infection and excessive bleeding requiring stitches.

Surgery is harmful. How can Mr. Granderson acknowledge that in sentence one and then deny it in sentence two? In the space between writing those two sentences, did severing nerve endings become not harmful? It’s more frustrating because his denial includes examples of medical harm. Other, more severe, outcomes are possible, too, including death. Mr. Granderson seems determined to believe what he wants to be true, regardless of facts.

Besides being an important aspect of some religions, circumcisions improve hygiene, …

Access to proper hygiene facilities is not a modern American problem in significant numbers. The same hygiene that females use to maintain their bodies works for males. To think that surgery is justified is simply begging one’s own question.

… which is effective in limiting urinary tract infections and the transference of STDs. …

The same treatments we use for UTIs in females work for males. For STDs condoms work better. Not all males engage in unsafe sex, so the potential benefit is useless for them. It is unethical to impose it because it may not be desired.

…And speaking of sex, having a circumcised penis saves the young man of the potential embarrassment of having a new partner look at his nude body and say “What in the hell is wrong with your… penis.”

Or something like that.

Maybe.

A recent study conducted by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researcher suggests the number of circumcisions performed dropped from 56% in 2006 to 33% in 2009. So chances are you or someone you know is uncircumcised, a fact that is really none of the business of complete strangers — government officials and busy-body voters alike. Why someone would sign a petition making it their business is beyond me.

This is just ridiculous. If a man reveals his normal nude body to a new sexual partner and the response he gets is “What in the hell is wrong with your… penis?”, I hope his parents will have taught him enough self-respect to treat his new partner as the person with the (hopefully correctable) defect. Would we accept that thought process if we started surgically altering girls so that they wouldn’t be shamed by their eventual sexual partners?

I could see the government getting involved in the decisions parents make about their children if there was evidence that circumcisions were a life-threatening practice — like failure to use car seats for young children. …

The standard is not whether the action is “life-threatening” or not. A punch to the face isn’t life-threatening, but it’s still wrong. Genital cutting on healthy female minors is illegal (and wrong), even where the damage is equally or less harmful than male genital cutting, which is to say, not life-threatening. (Typically.) This is once again question-begging.

Of course, some boys do die from circumcision. Circumcision is not usually life-threatening, but the risk of death exists every time it’s performed, which is why we generally avoid inflicting surgery on healthy people. Especially without their consent.

… I could see if the proposed ban was addressing a patriarchal practice such as female genital mutilation.

Male circumcision is a patriarchal practice. Aren’t many boys circumcised by their parents, at the father’s insistence that the child’s genitals match his genitals? Some doctors advise undecided parents to make the decision based on the father’s penis. Is that the rule of the male? Does it subordinate children? Mr. Granderson’s view here seems to be the mistaken belief that there is no harm if a practice is being imposed by someone onto someone else of the same gender. Do I need to link to examples of women imposing FGM on their daughters to demonstrate the fallacy of relying on this faulty standard?

This is about choice and preference and opinion and I am really tired of being subjected to ridiculous laws instituted by religious conservatives pandering to a bunch of crazy people or by meddling liberals who have nothing better to do.

This is about choice and preference and opinion? In what way? The child being circumcised does not choose. No one cares about his preference. No one waits to hear his opinion. The child is subjected to the choice, preference, and opinion of his parents. Permanently.

Seriously, if municipalities in San Francisco or Santa Monica honestly believe parents can’t be trusted to decide what’s best for their newborn’s foreskin, why on earth would they let them leave the hospital with the rest of him? It just doesn’t make sense.

California law already believes that parents can’t be trusted to decide what’s best for their newborn’s foreskin, but on the discriminatory view that only the female prepuce should be untouched without need or consent of the patient.

No wonder these anti-circumcision organizers have their sights on the rest of the country. We’re a bunch of nosy busy bodies who believe in an abbreviated version of freedom where we’re free to publicly debate what someone else should do with their private parts or the private parts of their newborn.

The status quo is the society with an abridged version of individual freedom. Again, the law in California (and most other places) already ended the public debate on what someone may do with the private parts of their daughters. Does that restrict parental “rights”? This debate is about fixing the status quo into a legitimate version of freedom where every individual, male or female, gets to decide which unnecessary genital surgeries they undergo or reject.

**********

To address a point Mr. Granderson raises, the issue of the “Foreskin Man” comic book series is relevant to the discussion. It is not the end of the discussion, as some are suggesting. That the series is embarrassing, and that issue two uses anti-Semitic imagery, is undeniable. The comic book is disgusting and has no place in the discussion by anyone advocating against non-therapeutic male child circumcision. It is a shameful mark on its creators.

That said, I hope it’s abundantly clear that only a minority of people opposed to non-therapeutic male child circumcision accept this type of filth. As the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center states, “there is no organization that controls, or could control, what individuals who oppose circumcision may say or do.” The first issue of “Foreskin Man” is probably unhelpful, but issue two is unacceptable. But it’s not reflective of the principles involved or the majority of those who support and advocate those principles. I have commented elsewhere on this, and will let that stand as my personal defense. I also recommend this post from The Volokh Conspiracy as a useful guide on objectionable material.

Rejecting Majority Rule in Favor of Majority Rule

There is simply too much pro-infant circumcision talk within The Washington Post’s opinion sections recently to adequately address everything flawed within its pages. Instead, some quick hits.

From Dr. Mohammad A. Khalid:

In my opinion as a doctor, male circumcision should not be banned, and should not be in any way equated with female genital cutting (FGC).

He’s making a legal argument based on his medical degree. That is a logical fallacy The Washington Post shouldn’t have enabled. We don’t legally allow parents to cut their daughters’ genitals if that cutting will leave a “minor”, non-permanent wound. Legally, we know it is a violation of the child’s constitutionally-protected rights. The medical argument within the legal argument is settled once we approach the initial diagnosis of the child that any genital cutting would be non-therapeutic. Legally, there is no justifiable distinction to be made. That is the issue involved.

Later:

[FGC] is a violent procedure, often done in a primitive, non-medical setting and is mostly accomplished with crude instruments and performed without anesthesia.

Male genital cutting (MGC) is a violent procedure. That comparison works. The rest of the second paragraph doesn’t, but it proves nothing. No one would support FGC if parents have it performed in a modern medical setting with proper surgical tools and anesthetic. They shouldn’t, of course, because it’s wrong whenever it’s non-therapeutic and forced. But the principle is the same, regardless of gender: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. In this core, logical respect, Dr. Khalid is wrong. MGC equals FGC.

Next, from Dr. Aseem Shukla:

The data is mixed, there is no wrong or right answer. Families deal with the nebulous every day and make a decision that is right for their children. But to me, the inanity over the circumcision debate lies also in its ignorance of medical realities. If a child has had recurrent urinary tract infections or a lower urinary tract anomaly, circumcision can protect the child from the risk of renal damage by nearly 10 to 15 fold. If a child has a hypospadias, an anomaly where the urethral opening opens along the shaft of the penis rather than at the tip, then I will use the foreskin to reconstruct the urethra, and a circumcision results. And while my clinic is full of children, also, with partially done circumcisions, adhesions that have formed, and urethral openings that have narrowed after circumcision requiring additional surgery and health care dollars, my clinic is just as full of children with foreskin that is painfully infected, scarred with lichen sclerosis, ballooning, torn and tight that may necessitate a circumcision.. [sic]

Dr. Shukla is a voice of ignorance here regarding medical realities. If a child has recurrent UTIs, circumcision may be medically necessary. If a child has a hypospadias, circumcision may be medically necessary. The question is not “Should we treat patients who have medical needs”, but “Should we treat children who have no medical need?”. The issue at stake is non-therapeutic circumcision. Unless we start making a “logical” case for non-therapeutic appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or any other intervention that might solve some future problem, society abuses logic in defending non-therapeutic male circumcision. Even female genital cutting could be justified on the confusion Dr. Shukla creates by muddying the obvious distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic.

[As an aside, is it possible that some of the problems for the intact children he cites are created by premature, forced retraction of the normal foreskin by parents and/or pediatricians?]

Sticking with Dr. Shukla, he is arguing against a proposed prohibition that is not up for consideration:

… Any type of blanket ban on a circumcision until the age of consent so ignores the real medical necessities of circumcision in some cases, that the concept is beyond contemplation; it is medically irresponsible and dangerous.

The proposed law is not a “blanket ban on a circumcision until the age of consent”. It would prohibit non-therapeutic circumcision until the age of consent. Healthy children do not need surgery. Thus, it shouldn’t be imposed, even if that surgery might reduce the risk of some malady later. The only stance here that is medically irresponsible is Dr. Shukla’s. Until he reads the proposed law, he shouldn’t pontificate on his factual errors.

Next, from Charles C. Haynes, Director of the Religious Freedom Education Project:

The anti-circumcision referendum is both wrong and dangerous because it subjects religious freedom to a popular vote. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943):

“One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Each healthy male child’s bodily integrity – his life, liberty, and property, as well as other fundamental rights – is submitted to a vote by his parents. If they vote “yes”, his rights are violated. Why should it be better that the vote belongs to his parents rather those who would protect his right to choose “yes” or “no” for himself? He is an equal individual, allegedly with the same liberty interests that his sisters have. Yet, his sisters are protected by law, regardless of parental wish. The use of an election here is because legislatures and courts are not doing their job to protect those rights equally for all citizens. The flaw is in the reason this method is necessary, not the method itself.

Of course, opponents of circumcision – who call themselves “intactivists” – are free to make their argument against a medical procedure they consider “male genital mutilation.” But what they should not be free to do is criminalize a religious ritual that medical authorities generally agree is not harmful.

It is harmful. It removes healthy, normal tissue and nerves. It leaves a wound that results in a scar. The only debate over whether circumcision is harmful is carried out by people who believe that subjective preferences are universal, and anyone who does not share one’s opinion is somehow misguided or uninformed. We don’t have to look for the examples of circumcision complications, including death, to understand the obvious truth that all surgery inflicts harm. Legally and medically.

As for Mr. Haynes’ implied rejection that male circumcision qualifies as genital mutilation, the World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as follows (emphasis added): “Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” In other words, any surgical intervention less damaging than male circumcision, inflicted on females for the exact reasons we cite for male circumcision, would still qualify as genital mutilation. To avoid confusion, any reason for circumcising a healthy male child is non-medical. If we are to pretend that chasing potential benefits counts as a medical reason for surgery, then parents may impose any intervention they wish, unrestrained by society. We reject that, correctly, since children have rights. The only viable conclusion is that societal deference to non-therapeutic child circumcision is mistaken and should be corrected.

As a society we’re establishing that “one’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote,” unless one is a male minor. That’s what all of these individuals advocates, albeit ignorantly. They argue for a viewpoint where male children do not possess the same rights as everyone else in society, because society’s opinion is the correct norm to which male children must conform forever, if demanded by their parents. That is wrong. Each of these advocates – Dr. Mohammad A. Khalid, Dr. Aseem Shukla, and Charles C. Haynes – is wrong on non-therapeutic male circumcision.
Charles

Incomplete Opinions and Certainty

Debra Saunders has an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle on the ballot initiative that would finally protect all children in San Francisco from non-therapeutic genital cutting. The essay is a mess of incomplete information. She begins:

In 2010 San Francisco supervisors banned Happy Meals. They showed no regard for parental choice.

That’s correct. It’s also irrelevant to the discussion of circumcision, when considered and considered correctly. The new proposal doesn’t show “no regard for parental choice,” since parents would still be able to choose therapeutic circumcision for their sons in the rare event it becomes necessary. Presumably they would choose the least invasive effective method for treating an ailment, but they would retain the choice. That is the proper extent of proxy consent for circumcision.

So it should not come as a shock that activists have managed to put a measure on the November ballot that essentially would outlaw the circumcision of baby boys. If it passes, then parents won’t be able to choose to circumcise their infant sons. The penalty for the “genital cutting of male minors” will be a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.

It would “essentially” outlaw the circumcision of baby boys because it would prohibit the circumcision of healthy baby boys, the ones who do not need surgery. Again, contrary to the slant Saunders offers, parents would still be able to choose to circumcise their infant sons. The only difference is that it would have to be medically necessary. This proposal would “restrict” parental choice in the same manner California law restricts parental choice for genital cutting of healthy daughters.

Saunders is working to that, of course:

The ballot measure bills itself as a ban on “forced genital cutting” and “mutilation.” Clearly the authors want to confuse voters …

If Saunders is in favor of not confusing voters, then she should be precise in her language and specify that the proposal involves non-therapeutic circumcision, not all circumcision. It should also be obvious that she never addresses the question of whether or not non-therapeutic circumcision on an infant male is, in fact, “forced genital cutting” or could be considered “mutilation.” If we’re avoiding confusion, it is both initiated without the consent of the patient and it involves cutting away the foreskin, a portion of the child’s genitals.

… by equating male circumcision to female genital mutilation, the barbaric, unsanitary butchering of a young girl’s private parts in a procedure that has been known to leave girls severely infected and in pain.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong, regardless of whether the individual is female or male. Saunders expects us to take the position that gender matters, if only because the procedures involves some differences. But California law makes no distinction between unsanitary butchering of a healthy girl’s genitals and sanitary non-permanent injury. It’s all prohibited, restricting parental choice. California law does not – and should not – distinguish the difference and permit the latter. Thus, if equal rights mean anything, then gender shouldn’t be an acceptable distinction, either.

It’s also worth noting that male circumcision has been known to leave boys severely infected and in pain. Does that matter?

The purpose of female genital mutilation is to reduce a woman’s sexual pleasure. The World Health Organization says it has “no health benefits for girls or women.” On the other hand, a 2007 WHO report recommended that male circumcision be recognized as “an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.”

Since we’re quoting WHO, let’s also consider this: “Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” If the definition of genital mutilation is the result from “procedures that intentionally alter or injure <...> genital organs for non-medical reasons,” and it is, then male child circumcision is also genital mutilation. Again, if all individuals have equal rights, then <...> can’t just be female. Parents who circumcise their healthy sons “intentionally alter or and injure” their son’s genital organs for non-medical reasons. It is genital mutilation.

Saunders seems to lump “HIV prevention,” another imprecise term, into “medical” reasons. It isn’t a medical reason because circumcision is not essential to the health of the child or his ability to prevent the transmission of HIV. Anyway, HIV “prevention” is a misnomer. It reduces the risk, a not-subtle semantic distinction. And that reduction in risk is only in female-to-male transmission in high-risk populations, neither of which describes the male infants of San Francisco.

With further exploration of the WHO factsheet, it’s useful to note that California law prohibits all four types of FGM, including those that are equally or less damaging than male circumcision. Butchering has a broad scope.

The purpose of FGM also has a broad scope. I agree that it is used to reduce a woman’s sexual pleasure. However, this is not a unanimous reason. The WHO factsheet states, “[t]he causes of female genital mutilation include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities.” Many of these involve variations of power, control, and sexual harm. But some less so, and others not at all. There is some note of cultural tradition and models of “proper” gender ideals. These excuses should be quite familiar to the typical American parent considering non-therapeutic circumcision for their sons. Yet, California law makes no exemptions for stated intent or desired extent of damage in prohibiting parental choice involving daughters. If protection from harm for non-medical reasons is a right, and we claim to value equal rights, why do boys deserve less protection than girls?

The WHO factsheet also states this about the reasons for FGM (emphasis added):

Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice.

The next section from Saunders is this:

The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that parents be informed that “newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.” Palo Alto pediatrician Erica Goldman follows the guideline. She informs parents of the pluses – reduced chances of urinary tract infection and sexually transmitted diseases – as well as the risks – it’s a permanent cosmetic change. “It really is a decision to be made on a personal and cultural basis,” Goldman told me.

“I personally believe the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks,” Goldman added.

We’re not discussing a decision made on a “personal” basis, are we, since males don’t get to choose for themselves? Quoting a doctor on cultural justifications for non-therapeutic surgery is nothing more than an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy using her MD as proof that she’s correct on something unrelated to her expertise. (Her expertise should also declare that healthy children do not need genital cutting.)

Finally, Saunders offers an attempted witticism to demonstrate how foolish it is to “restrict” parental choice.

How wonderful it must feel to be floored at Ess Eff’s latest exercise in self-parody. The bill fits. A busybody law? Check. Does it address a problem most folks did not know existed? Check. Pun opportunities? Oh, yeah. First they came for the Chicken McNuggets, then they came for my son’s …

The only person coming after the foreskin of her hypothetical parent’s son is… her hypothetical parent. That’s what is at issue. There is currently no individual choice. A ban on Happy Meals limits individual choice, including parental choice, without a compelling governmental interest to prevent objective harm. The current proposal expands individual choice by limiting parental choice. There is a compelling governmental interest in protecting the rights of healthy children from the objective harm of non-therapeutic surgery.

“Personal Control” Is Gender-Neutral

In this essay on the rights of females in Egypt to be free from genital mutilation, Maureen Gill makes several common mistakes in analyzing the subject, which allows her to extend that mistake to missing the comparison male genital cutting. She states:

This issue is at the very core of what it means to have personal control over one’s own bodily integrity and human sexuality.

The issue is female genital mutilation.

That is exactly the core of the issue. I don’t know why the obvious gender-blind leap is difficult.

After a brief introduction about FGM, she continues:

FGM comes in three basic forms, from the most extreme to the still extreme. …

WHO recognizes four types, ranging from pricking to the most extreme forms Gill describes. I agree that they’re all harmful and should be illegal and punished where there isn’t consent by the individual affected. But facts don’t change just because we have a particular angle we want to sell. While uncommon, medical organizations recognize pricking as a distinct, practiced type of female genital cutting. It is less severe than male circumcision. It is still illegal in Western nations. (And chaos predictably and correctly erupts when it’s seemingly endorsed by Western medical authorities.)

Continuing:

… It has been referred to as female circumcision but that is a gross misnomer …

I agree on this point, and not just based on the semantics of the word circumcision. But, then, I refer to male circumcision by its accurate description, male genital mutilation. Names should include ethics, where appropriate.

… and imparts on this practice a suggestion that it is the equal of male circumcision.

It is not.

The two are the same, ethically. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual, female or male, is unethical and immoral.

Of course, I acknowledge quite readily that the harm from female genital cutting as it’s typically practiced is more severe than the harm from male genital cutting as it’s typically practiced. But that doesn’t mean that male genital cutting gets an ethical pass because there’s something worse in the world. Every argument Gill makes in favor of protecting a female’s rights applies to males. To repeat her words:

This issue is at the very core of what it means to have personal control over one’s own bodily integrity and human sexuality.

Why do boys not deserve personal control over their bodily integrity and sexuality? Gill makes no serious attempt. (More on this in a moment.)

If male circumcision were its equal then male circumcision would be (in its most benign form) the reduction or modification of the male penis in order to reduce or eliminate full sexual pleasure. …

If intent matters instead of the actual harm caused by the surgical intervention, then parents merely need to claim good intent for cutting their daughter’s genitals to satisfy the low standard Gill established. Within the WHO link above on FGM, there is a clear statement that some excuses offered by parents for female genital mutilation mirror some of the excuses offered – and accepted – for male genital mutilation. She wouldn’t accept such a parental justification for females, so why does it matter that parents don’t intend to harm their sons? They harm them. That’s the unavoidable outcome.

Nor is FGM always performed to inhibit sexual pleasure, although that’s the likely result. Some women indicate that they still feel sexual pleasure after being cut. Does that matter? I contend no, and I’m sure Gill does, as well. Thus, it’s unpersuasive to base her argument on the generalizations she uses, or to miss the similarities she rejects.

A few individuals challenged her in the comments to her essay. She replied:

… No baby male child was ever circumcised without a parental consent form and I never met a man who refused the procedure for his child although I know there are some who would. …

To repeat, where is personal control over one’s own bodily integrity and human sexuality when parental consent is all that’s necessary to force an unnecessary, harmful, permanent action on a male child’s genitals? For me, I do not want to be circumcised. I want personal control over my own bodily integrity and sexuality, which I can never have. It’s not a violation of my personal control over my own bodily integrity and sexuality because I have a penis rather than a vagina? That’s flawed, sexist thinking.