Circumcision

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Having had mine pierced and getting infections and seeing how babies and kids play with their ears with dirty hands...not a good idea imo. 

I went to primary school with a girl whose pierced earlobes were almost perpetually red and swollen from infection, and sometimes the holes leaked pus. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why does it need to be compared to what is done or not done to females anyway?  Either it is right or wrong on its own.  

I'm happy for Pogi to reply on his own behalf. (He's been very eloquent in this thread.) In my opinion, it's because the completely valid arguments against male genital cutting tend to fall on deaf ears in cutting cultures. It's blatant gender bias. Genital cutting of females generates howls of protest; genital cutting of boys generates shrugs and long explanations -- nearly always by women or cut men -- why it's somehow different and therefore no big deal. But it's not different. At all.

And men who want to complain or speak up are often silenced by these kinds of dismissive discussions. At some point, we have to decide that men's voices are as important to hear as women's voices on this topic. The sex of the person speaking should not determine whom we take seriously, and the sex of the person cut without consent should not determine what we take seriously.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I went to primary school with a girl whose pierced earlobes were almost perpetually red and swollen from infection, and sometimes the holes leaked pus. 

Fond memories and I treated mine just as I should too. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Calm said:

Fond memories and I treated mine just as I should too. 

I have no clue what that means.

[Calm]

“In my opinion, it's because the completely valid arguments against male genital cutting tend to fall on deaf ears in cutting cultures. It's blatant gender bias”

Then I suspect you need better framed arguments rather than appealing to what gets done to females if it hasn’t worked yet. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have no clue what that means.

I had similar infection even when cared for. Being sarcastic 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then I suspect you need better framed arguments rather than appealing to what gets done to females if it hasn’t worked yet. 

I find your dismissiveness genuinely appalling.

If it's OK to remove healthy sexual tissue from some children and not from others, and if the sole variable that determines if it's OK or not is the sex of the child, then we are dealing with blatant gender bias. Not seeing that starts to appear like wilful blindness. It honestly makes me dizzy. 

I believe you would be one of the first to point this out if the sexes were reversed.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find your dismissiveness genuinely appalling.

If it's OK to remove healthy sexual tissue from some children and not from others, and if the sole variable that determines if it's OK or not is the sex of the child, then we are dealing with blatant gender bias. Not seeing that starts to appear like willful blindness. It honestly makes me dizzy. 

I am not being dismissive. You and others here have convinced me in the past when this has been discussed 

I am just speaking to reality. If it hasn’t worked in the past, repeating the process seems unlikely to be successful suddenly. 

You need to find something that catches imagination. I don’t see that happening that often with arguments of “mine is worse than....” even when true whether it is females pointing out bias or males or races or whstever. Something has to be horrifying in itself to catch imagination. Otherwise attention is shifted to what is already seen as horrifying rather than staying focused on the current issue. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it hasn’t worked in the past, repeating the process seems unlikely to be successful suddenly. 

This is key, I suspect. No one can expect sudden change. Cultural and gender biases are too deep-seated, and when they intersect human sexuality, it seems they are even more so.

I live in a nation that no longer allows its public hospitals to perform circumcisions for any reason, but we still allow private hospitals to do it, and parents can take their sons overseas to be cut. I think that means we're merely partway there. The US seems aeons behind us, but things appear to be finally moving there too. It'll be interesting to watch.

But nothing will happen if people don't keep talking and sharing ... even if it seems very few are listening right now.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm happy for Pogi to reply on his own behalf. (He's been very eloquent in this thread.) In my opinion, it's because the completely valid arguments against male genital cutting tend to fall on deaf ears in cutting cultures. It's blatant gender bias. Genital cutting of females generates howls of protest; genital cutting of boys generates shrugs and long explanations -- nearly always by women or cut men -- why it's somehow different and therefore no big deal. But it's not different. At all.

And men who want to complain or speak up are often silenced by these kinds of dismissive discussions. At some point, we have to decide that men's voices are as important to hear as women's voices on this topic. The sex of the person speaking should not determine whom we take seriously, and the sex of the person cut without consent should not determine what we take seriously.

 

Actually, there is only one voice that matters and that is the person who is attached to what is being cut.  No parent has the moral right to make that kind of decision for another person even if that person is their son.  Circumcision can be performed at any point in a person's life.  It is not something that has to be. done in childhood.  Once the circumcision is done, there is no option to undo it.  Restoration of the foreskin is not the same as never losing the foreskin.  The rampant removal of the foreskin in America is simply cultural and should be stopped.  

[Calm]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is key, I suspect. No one can expect sudden change. Cultural and gender biases are too deep-seated, and when they intersect human sexuality, it seems they are even more so.

I live in a nation that no longer allows its public hospitals to perform circumcisions for any reason, but we still allow private hospitals to do it, and parents can take their sons overseas to be cut. I think that means we're merely partway there. The US seems aeons behind us, but things appear to be finally moving there too. It'll be interesting to watch.

But nothing will happen if people don't keep talking and sharing. 

I think a campaign for “want your kid to be a stud?  Don’t circumcise!” might work. 

Then get some star sports men bragging about it (clothes on)

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Actually, there is only one voice that matters and that is the person who is attached to what is being cut.

Amen!

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

What about a child born with an extra finger (i.e., polydactylism)? 

Seems like cold comfort to tell your daughter that she has to spend her entire childhood looking like one of the bad guys from the Princess Bride because you didn't want to inflict pain upon her for purely cosmetic reasons. 

 

So intact earlobes are a birth defect? Who knew?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hate when I see babies with their ears pierced as well, poor things.

I have always been ambivalent. I think part of it was that I would have liked to have had my ears pierced earlier than I did but it wasn't an option with my mom (much of her family's generation doesn't do ear piercings). She'd start talking about how I'd regret it or get an infection or get tired of wearing them. She was wrong on all counts. As it is, I'll probably wait until my kids want it and let them decide once I know they can clean them properly. I'm generally okay with cultural practices that may include short term pain as long as the effect/chance for long term harm is very small. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why does it need to be compared to what is done or not done to females anyway?  Either it is right or wrong on its own.  

It helps because FGM is already recognized as unethical.  

The comparison had a significant influence on my personal conversion experience on this issue.   It helps people to recognize common cultural misconceptions about male and female genital mutilation for one.  It helps people recognize their own cultural bias in calling one "barbaric" while the other is seen as culturally expected by many - the bias becomes obvious when we recognize that the removal of homologous tissue in one sex is referred to as "female genital mutilation" while the other is referred to as "male circumcision".  Linguistically and culturally speaking, there is clear bias.  So, when people realize that the illegal and unethical procedure of female genital mutilation is often less invasive and much safer than male circumcision as performed in the US, it makes people question things.   When you apply the same ethical arguments which people have used against FGM towards MGM then the ethical discrepancy becomes more apparent.  

As the paper I link to points out: 

Quote

The non-therapeutic alteration of children’s genitals is typically discussed in two separate ethical discourses

One for girls and one for boys.  Why?

The gap between how the ethical perceptions of these two procedures seems to be vast and wide and uncrossable.  But when we compare the gap between the actual medical procedures, in terms of risk vs. benefit, when performed by a competent medical professional under sterile conditions, that gap is a tiny crack, if existent at all.  The comparison helps to bridge the gap between the discrepancies of the ethical perceptions and medical realities. 

 

 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

It helps because FGM is already recognized as unethical. 

I am just not seeing that move people in and of itself though.  They have to research it to compare enough to realize any similarity as in general, on the surface circumcision 'feels' more external and therefore cosmetic and FGM 'feels' more internal and therefore surgical from the way I hear people talk about it.  If they research it enough to figure out how it compares, they probably know enough to make a decision whether it is ethical without having to appeal to  "it's unethical on girls".

Using mutilation instead of circumcision is good practice as long as people understand what you are talking about.  Using cutting instead of circumcise is probably useful as well.  But in this day and culture, you might have more success pushing the positive aspects of not doing it, especially if you can get studies of women preferring uncircumcised men as sexual partners for whatever reason...then that gets put in magazines or online news and it gets talked about.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I have always been ambivalent. I think part of it was that I would have liked to have had my ears pierced earlier than I did but it wasn't an option with my mom (much of her family's generation doesn't do ear piercings). She'd start talking about how I'd regret it or get an infection or get tired of wearing them. She was wrong on all counts. As it is, I'll probably wait until my kids want it and let them decide once I know they can clean them properly. I'm generally okay with cultural practices that may include short term pain as long as the effect/chance for long term harm is very small. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I just picture that little baby laying on it's side and having to deal with a pair of earrings, and like Calm mentioned, the infections that can occur. And that baby not even getting a say in it. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not being dismissive. You and others here have convinced me in the past when this has been discussed 

I am just speaking to reality. If it hasn’t worked in the past, repeating the process seems unlikely to be successful suddenly. 

You need to find something that catches imagination. I don’t see that happening that often with arguments of “mine is worse than....” even when true whether it is females pointing out bias or males or races or whstever. Something has to be horrifying in itself to catch imagination. Otherwise attention is shifted to what is already seen as horrifying rather than staying focused on the current issue. 

Thanks for your input.  The same arguments may not work for everybody, but it certainly did work for me, and I am certain they are influential on others as well.  Published PhD ethicists in peer reviewed journals seem to find the argument compelling too. 

Can you please explain to me where the argument and comparison breaks down for you, ethically speaking?  

Can you list the reasons why FGM should be illegal and unethical and explain why they should not be applied to baby boys too?

You say that you don't find arguments of "mine is worse than..." as compelling, even when true.  That is interesting because that is the precise argument that people use to argue that FGM should be illegal and MGM should be expected.  I don't blame them for making that argument, because the ethical discrepancies in cultural perception is indefensible otherwise.  On the contrary, I feel like my argument has always been to say that the procedures are basically equal in terms of risk vs. benefit as performed on homologous tissue by competent medical professionals using the same sterile technique.  I am not trying to say that MGM is worse, I am saying it is equivalent.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Something has to be horrifying in itself to catch imagination.

Would pictures help?  Keep in mind that this is often not done with any anesthesia at all. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_surgical_procedure#/media/File:Beschneidung_2.jpg

Why do you perceive FGM as "horrifying" but not "MGM"?  What caught your imagination there?  This might help me understand how to better form my arguments in the future?  I honestly think a lot of it is cultural bias in language etc.  "mutilation" vs "circumcision" etc.  

Edited January 11, 2019 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just picture that little baby laying on it's side and having to deal with a pair of earrings, and like Calm mentioned, the infections that can occur. And that baby not even getting a say in it. 

If that bothers you, I’d strongly recommend you never watch a video of a baby’s circumcision...

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you please explain to me where the argument and comparison breaks down for you, ethically speaking?  

Can you list the reasons why FGM should be illegal and unethical and explain why they should not be applied to baby boys too?

I don't think you understand my position,  I am speaking to the public discussion, the .PR aspects... not my own perception.  I think getting female circumcision labeled mutilation was a big step in public awareness.  Though male circumcision also has the problem it is not "other", but considered normal in our society.  FGM was pretty unknown where and when .I grew up.  I knew of it in primitive societies in my teens due to my study of anthropology, but .I bet few of my fellow teens knew about it.  Finding out it was still being practiced and how widespread was shocking.  You don't have that same shock value due to the common nature of our culture's version of MGM.  You need to find something immediately and graphically shocking that most people are unaware of to catch attention, imo, if you go the negative route.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If that bothers you, I’d strongly recommend you never watch a video of a baby’s circumcision...

This might be the best thing to do as far as the negative aspects....start flooding the public with videos of circumcisions with lots of crying babies that are not easily comforted.  If the parents don't see it done (I didn't), they have no clue.  I remember thinking it looked painful, but so did the belly button where the umbilical cord was cut off and I think I equated the two iirc.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is interesting because that is the precise argument that people use to argue that FGM should be illegal and MGM should be expected.

My experience has been that FGM was treated completely as something 'new', girls were being disfigured to control them sexually in primitive or oppressive cultures.  That was the only argument anyone around me made and it was very successful.  Pretty everyone was instantly against it.  Helped greatly it was so "other" to our experience.

Quote

You say that you don't find arguments of "mine is worse than..." as compelling, even when true.

I am saying in my observation, these types of arguments are not particularly compelling in convincing the general public.

Quote

?  I honestly think a lot of it is cultural bias in language etc.  "mutilation" vs "circumcision" etc.  

Yes, that is what I am suggesting needs to be focused on, changing the language used, change the perception visually, push the positive aspects because MGM lacks the advantage of being " other" to Western culture at this point.  "Otherness" makes for easy targets of horror.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am just not seeing that move people in and of itself though.  They have to research it to compare enough to realize any similarity as in general, on the surface circumcision 'feels' more external and therefore cosmetic and FGM 'feels' more internal and therefore surgical from the way I hear people talk about it.  If they research it enough to figure out how it compares, they probably know enough to make a decision whether it is ethical without having to appeal to  "it's unethical on girls".

Using mutilation instead of circumcision is good practice as long as people understand what you are talking about.  Using cutting instead of circumcise is probably useful as well.  But in this day and culture, you might have more success pushing the positive aspects of not doing it, especially if you can get studies of women preferring uncircumcised men as sexual partners for whatever reason...then that gets put in magazines or online news and it gets talked about.

I think that is good advise to try to make more emotional arguments.  Because you are right, people generally base these decisions on "feelings" more than anything.  I think there is room for both types of arguments however.  I think we need to capture the hearts and minds.   It can be difficult to capture the hearts given popular cultural misconceptions, so sometimes we need to correct those misconceptions first. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think that is good advise to try to make more emotional arguments.  Because you are right, people generally base these decisions on "feelings" more than anything.  I think there is room for both types of arguments however.  I think we need to capture the hearts and minds.   It can be difficult to capture the hearts given popular cultural misconceptions, so sometimes we need to correct those misconceptions first. 

It is also difficult to push the mutilation concept because so many men have it themselves and don't look on themselves as mutilated, nor are they likely to want to look at themselves that way.  Plus parents don't want to feel guilty, they want to feel superior (which they can in protesting to stop FGM because they would never do that to their child!).  

It is an uphill battle, imo.  That is why I think pushing the positive aspects might work better. 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If that bothers you, I’d strongly recommend you never watch a video of a baby’s circumcision...

I couldn't watch once I heard that poor baby cry. I'm tempted to post it on FB. Maybe I'll do it.