Jump to content

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 25 November 2016 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice


Adding a Male Genital Mutilation Section

I'm not sure why the changes to the Male Genital Mutilation section were rolled back. For the most part they mirrored the text of the Female Genital Mutilation section. As far as I can tell the rollback was performed to protect the opinions of those in favor of Male Genital Mutilation (I assume specifically male circumcision) and therefore represent a non-neutral point of view. No reasoning was given and no arguments were specified, but in good faith I'll address what I think must be the most important points:


1) There needs to a Female Genital Mutilation and Male Genital Mutilation section in this article. There are many forms of genital mutilation performed on males and females.

2) If it's deemed necessary to have a separate subsection addressing male circumcision and its religious and cultural circumstances, that could be added

3) Male circumcision is, like female circumcision, a form of genital mutilation, so the main heading should be Male Genital Mutilation. The foreskin is part of the male genitalia and the definition of 'mutilate' leaves no doubt that the removal of the foreskin, a discrete and identifiable body part, from a person is mutilation:


Merriam-Webster [1]:

1 to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>

2 to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Dictionary.com [2]:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


4) I agree with other readers that there needs to be a distinction made in the article between fetishist/aesthetic body modification performed by or on request of the person undergoing the procedure; therapeutic treatments for acute medical conditions; and non-therapeutic, involuntary genital mutilation.

5) No major health organization recommends routine infant circumcision. The WHO, for instance, is very specific in recommending male circumcision only on a voluntary basis for adult men in regions with heterosexual HIV epidemics and only by well trained medical personnel in a medical setting -- not for children and never by non-medically trained religious or cultural representatives.

6) The harmful side effects of male circumcision are well documented. The loss of erogenous tissue and nerve endings, loss of mobility, increased keratinization and drying of the glans, as well as the various medical and surgical complications that in any procedure can lead to disfigurement and death.

7) If someone holds the opinion that there are benefits to male circumcision, and that they outweigh the harm done, they may argue to excuse its practice or even encourage it. Its classification as genital mutilation does not change. The presence of negative side-effects is not affected.


Considering these points, the factual, neutral, and appropriate description of male circumcision is as Male Genital Mutilation. The changes were cited and accurate. We should not be in the practice of censoring encyclopedia articles to preserve the feelings of any group(s).


[1] "Mutilate." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.

[2] "mutilation". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 12 Sep. 2016. <Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutilation>.

[3] "Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention." World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.65.94 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On November 4, I removed the section because it was quite clearly created to mimic the female genital mutilation content and to paint circumcision as genital mutilation, and I removed it because there is already a circumcision section in the article. The wording of the male genital mutilation section literally took the World Health Organization's wording for female genital mutilation and applied it to the notion of male genital mutilation. As has been discussed times before at Talk:Circumcision and at Talk:Female genital mutilation, there are various reasons why circumcision is not considered mutilation or to be on the same par with female genital mutilation.
Moments ago, Edit15817 (talk · contribs) reverted me, stating, "Genital Mutilation is not funny. Discuss wording before deleting sections. MGM covers more than male circumcision", and Ian.thomson reverted him, stating that he should bring the matter to the talk page. It seems that Edit15817 is the IP. I will see if WP:Med is willing to weigh in on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're comparing FMG and MGM at all. And it seems you are reducing FGM to Type III and MGM to circumcision. There's no need for the reduction or the comparison here. Many people would agree, though, that penectomy, castration, and penile flaying (to mention a few) are all equivalent at least to any form of FGM. Furthermore, circumcision removes the frenulum and ridged band which are not only highly valued parts of man's sexuality, but are also designed to trigger ejaculation, stimulate erection, maintain erection, and allow for faster subsequent ejaculations. Removal of these structures reduces a man's sexual efficiency (as already noted elsewhere on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why this page is being targeted for censorship) as well as his sexual pleasure. We could also talk about how it creates a captive customer base for multi-billion dollar erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals, ribbed for her pleasure condoms, and personal lubricants for men who have had the natural mobility of their genitals removed, or that the foreskin is often sold to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to produce for-profit goods creating a conflict of interest, but again, none of that is necessary to justify a section on Male Genital Mutilation in an encyclopedia. FGM and MGM have a lot of similarities, but there is no need to compare them in any way. None of this is a secret or speculative or really controversial at all. Wikipedia will benefit from an unhampered discussion of both phenomena, FGM and MGM. Edit15817 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, reverting a commit and accusing the author of intentionally mimicking or making light of a serious human rights issue without reason or evidence is not in line with the kind of community Wikipedia promotes. Edit15817 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not accept unsourced "research" based on POV-driven conspiracy theories. Cite medical sources or go away. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this section begins by comparing FGM to MGM, and the section I removed was mimicking the FGM section, I do not see why you are not sure that I'm comparing FGM to MGM. Frankly, I'm not sure why you repeatedly used the letters "FMG" instead of "FGM." As for anything else, unless I stated my views or otherwise made my views very clear, it's best not to assume what I think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
High quality references are needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've collapsed the OP above as it was not a proposal to change content based on reliable sources as defined in the policies and guidelines, and per WP:TPG article Talk pages are not soapboxes Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV and Bias Problems on This Page

as above, this is not a discussion about article content based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page has been plagued with biased editing and wholesale deletion of the MGM section. The notion that sexual violence does not and has never existed against men is ridiculous and unfounded and clearly contradicted by many other articles on Wikipedia and in peer reviewed sources. Medical organizations recognize Routine Infant Circumcision as a human rights violation, and I don't think anyone would argue that forced castration, penectomy, penile flaying, infibulation, forced circumcision of slaves and forced converts, or any of the other very real crimes committed against men are Genital Mutilation. In addition, organizations that oppose FMG recognize MGM as a real problem and oppose it. It exists; therefore there needs to be a MGM section and it needs to take into account the full breadth and brutality of the issue.

And since someone always tries to reduce the issue to male circumcision, that cannot be excepted either. No national medical organization promotes the procedure (the American CDC says that potential benefits may outweigh the harm done by the medical procedure; it does not address the human rights concerns). All major medical organizations around the world condemn Routine Infant Circumcision as a human rights violation specifically. Other national organizations that promote or require it do so for religious reasons and make no claim that it is for medical reasons.

Medical studies showing benefits only do so when circumcision is combined with free condoms and sex counseling for the man and his partners and only in heterosexual men who regularly have sex with prostitutes in HIV epidemic regions. Studies have shown the benefits of the surgical procedure have to do with bacteria levels on the penis, which is most likely why the same benefits are not shown in populations with regular access to clean bathing water or who have a practical or cultural compulsion to wash their genitals after sex. Studies have also shown that the same bacteria is present in much higher levels (there is a direct correlation between bacteria levels and rates of HIV transmission) in the vagina, and a larger amount of biological material from a woman's partner is retained in the vagina, but there is no push for FGM to prevent HIV transmission. There has not even been a study to address the idea.

Most MGM is driven by men out of fear of rejection by the opposite sex, the community, and religious institutions. Most FGM is driven by women out of fear of rejection by the opposite sex, the community, and religious institutions. If a mother's religious freedom does not extend so far as to allow her to have her daughter's genitals modified, then neither does a father's. A boy's right to bodily integrity is no less than a girl's. A man's right to religious freedom is no greater than a woman's.

Finally, the psychological phenomenon that drives a person to commit a crime against others that was committed against them is well documented. It's far easier to pass it along than it is to admit being a victim. A person's acceptance or rejection of their own genital mutilation (I'm not talking about adult religious conversions, fetishes, or aesthetic modifications) has no bearing on the fact that modifying the healthy tissue of another human being without consent and without the medical necessity required to invoke proxy consent is unethical and criminal according to any logical reading of medical and social mandates.

The modifications and deletions of the MGM section are petty, destructive, and POV driven. We should be working together to improve Wikipedia, not slashing articles that disagree with personal sentiments in the face of history, peer reviewed literature, and official standpoints of experts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit15817 (talk • contribs)

Blah blah blah... Cite medical sources or quit pushing an MRM POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of personal offence and nonconstructive editing I'm talking about. I'm not sure why you take such personal issue with this section, but there is nothing 'fringe' about the existence of MGM as a phenomenon. The vast majority, if not all, of organizations of medical experts range from condemning neonatal circumcision as a human rights violation to recommending strongly against it. And I'm sure there is universal acceptance that the various other current and historical forms of MGM committed against prisoners, slaves, forced converts, minorities, etc. constitute Genital Mutilation. Why are you spending so much of your time pretending this doesn't exist? Edit15817 (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing nonconstructive is your continued failure to cite medical sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official Statements on Routine Infant Circumcision

yet more SOAPBOX Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First, MGM encompasses more than neonatal circumcision and requires mention in the article by reason of those procedures alone. Second, the status of male circumcision is not disputed among experts and statements are easily found in freely accessible reports. There is nothing novel, no original interpretation, and no lack of clarity in the following statements (and there are many more). And third, facts that are found universally in sources and are easily observed and confirmed do not require citation, but here's some material to get the conversation started:


  • The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG)
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."


  • International Physicians Protest Against American Academy of Pediatrics’ Policy on Infant Male Circumcision (KNMG) (physicians from 16 countries)
"Circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and doctors’ oath and can have serious long-term consequences


  • American Cancer Society
"...based on the low risk of this cancer in the US, it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country."


  • Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 2010
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."


  • The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) 2009
"The matter of infant male circumcision is particularly difficult in regards to human rights, as it involves consideration of the rights of the infant as well as the rights of the parents. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, many consider it to be 'unwarranted mutilating surgery.'


  • The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba (CPSM) 2002
"Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether their parents had the right to give consent for infant male circumcision. They claim that an infant's rights should take priority over any parental rights to make such a decision. This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non-therapeutic procedure."
" ...specific medical indications for the performance of circumcision in the neonate are rare. ... the degree of benefit is small and does not support a decision to circumcise neonates."


  • American Academy of Pediatrics 1999
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
"...the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision."


  • American Academy of Pediatrics 1971
There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.


  • Canadian Paediatric Society (2015)
"Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent… the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."


  • British Medical Association (2006)
"The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child’s interests. . . . The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child."


  • The Children's Hospital at Westmead/Sydney Children's Hospital
"The Australian and New Zealand Association of Paediatric Surgeons (ANZAPS), the Australasian Urological Society and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) do not recommend that boys be circumcised routinely."


  • The Royal Australasian College of Physicians-2010 (RACP)
"Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognised that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent. After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit15817 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal emphasis (or the emphasis of whatever MRM blog you grabbed these purported statements from) constitutes editorializing original research, which we do not use. Furthermore, many of those cherry-picked, out-of-context statements don't actually so much condemn as simply not support. Nor do they explicitly refer to it as mutilation, nor does it support many of the MRM conspiracy theories you've previously ranted about. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation&oldid=751339747"