The case that could end ritual male circumcision in the UK

[Techno-Druid]

(Source)

A woman from Nottingham, England is suing the doctor who carried out a circumcision on her infant son without her permission. The circumcision took place during Eid festival when the infant was in the care of his biological father, a Muslim. After the operation, the child was in so much pain, he was unable to wear a nappy.

There is a stark contrast between female and male genital excision: the former is illegal, the other is permitted. There are mythical differences, too: one is seen as barbaric, the other as somehow beneficial.

I have actively contributed to the campaign to eradicate female genital mutilation (FGM), which varies in severity from the abhorrent radical destruction of outer genitalia (type I) to the most common, mildest form of clitoral excision (type IV). All types are forbidden, although not a single person has been convicted for this crime in Britain, despite estimates of 2.1% of females in London having been cut. At least girls are protected in law, if not always in practice.

Shearing off parts of genital organs is no less unethical or abusive because the child is male. Yet the political and professional establishments don’t want to know.

Arguably, circumcision is on a par with FGM type IV in terms of harm. In the short term, there is often inflammation, soreness and bleeding, and the risk that the wound may become infected. There are also potential long-term psychological harms that may arise in adulthood, as self-consciousness detracts from sexual intimacy. Yet outdated justifications for circumcision are blithely accepted.

There are medical benefits, some say. In fact, as stated by the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons, it is extremely rare for removal of the foreskin to be medically necessary.

Another excuse is hygiene. When an academic colleague doubted my stance on circumcision of boys, arguing that it is necessary for cleanliness, I asked: “What’s wrong with soap?”

“But they don’t wash,” she replied with implausible certainty.

Another similarity with FGM is that incidence of male circumcision may be increasing, due to demographic change. Astonishingly, in some areas of the country, it is funded by the NHS. This could become more established as local commissioning bodies give in to cultural demands.

Circumcision is a Muslim and Jewish practice, and is also prevalent in some African Christian communities (it was also fairly common among the upper and middle classes in Britain until the 1950s). Happily, some parents are honouring the rite of passage with an adapted ceremony that relinquishes the scalpel. A boy or girl is no less a Jew or Muslim if their genitals remain intact.

Admittedly not the most objective source, but I'm inclined to agree that infantile circumcision—outside of medical reasons—should be banned.

There’s obviously the health argument, that it reduces the chances of HIV infection (although if you live in the Western World, you should have sufficient education, access to condoms and the ability to readily have your sexual partner tested) along with the claim that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, which is astonishingly rare and has no correlation with circumcision. Most other arguments for circumcision outside of that are simply appeals to tradition and social contract, both of which should have little to no stake in governmental activity.

That’s not to say I think that it aesthetic circumcision should be banned entirely for everybody. If adult or even a teenager wants to have his foreskin removed for aesthetic reasons, then he should be free to. Infants however cannot consent.

[Lochton]

*slams head against the wall*

This should've been banned long ago. You don't need circumcision unless for medical reasons. If someone wants it done they should be able to say so themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Worst part is, I've heard bad examples of circumcision, and this article is one of them. There's some going so far for the god damn kid dying.

[Deleted]

The reason it isn't banned yet in many EU countries is because certain religious groups (or one really) play the victim and claim discrimination.

Just push it through already, we aren't living in medieval times! If you want to cut of the tip when you are 18, go for it. Before that it should be illegal.

[Freighter]

Why does it need to be banned exactly?

[Ryme]

Why does it need to be banned exactly?

On the off chance you're serious: because it's a needless medical procedure for religious reasons performed on someone without their consent. This is so clearly against the values of every western nation I can think of that allows it.

[Deleted]

Astonishingly, in some areas of the country, it is funded by the NHS.
Is this true? in the case of children, I mean.

[breadisfunny]

it is common here in the u.s. i had it done when i was a baby.

[Najnaj]

I am all for banning circumcision on infants but "ritual", really? It isn't accompanied by black candles and sacrificed goats. It is a fairly minor issue that is clearly wrong but still minor. You do not do body modifications to people without their consent. I feel the same way about piercing ears in little girls. It is obviously nowhere near female circumcision in severity as that is truly monstrous.

[tankbug]

The reason it isn't banned yet in many EU countries is because certain religious groups (or one really) play the victim and claim discrimination.

Just push it through already, we aren't living in medieval times! If you want to cut of the tip when you are 18, go for it. Before that it should be illegal.

At least two.
And one of them has a lot of support from Christian organisations.

[Daedius]

As it should, a broken record at this point but nonetheless a barbaric practice that needs to be phased out... find it beyond hypocritical to have issues with FMG and not for boys... regardless of the severity between the two it is still permanently alternating a child without consent.

[Daedius]

At least two.
And one of them has a lot of support from Christian organisations.

Christians... what? Sure you didn't mean Jews?

[Blobfish]

Male Circumcision is very healthy.

Circumcised men have less STDs including HIV

http://www.health.com/health/conditi...272051,00.html

It keeps everything clean..

My parents are not Jewish or some other religion.
They just thought it was better.
And looking back at it, I am grateful for having the chop.

[tankbug]

Christians... what? Sure you didn't mean Jews?

Yes, I meant the jews. And their religious rights are not just being defended by themselves, but also by christian origanisations, especially more conservative ones, which means that there are a lot of different voices that would try to stop a ban from getting passed.

[Linkedblade]

It's an aesthetic thing. People argue it removes nerves, but most nerves are in the glans, so this doesn't matter. If you do it at a young age like right after birth it's a simple procedure and causes minimal pain. Most religions necessitate it. And it's better to do it younger than older.

You can't equate it to fmg because the make equivalent would be to remove the glans.

[Flarelaine]

It's an aesthetic thing. People argue it removes nerves, but most nerves are in the glans, so this doesn't matter. If you do it at a young age like right after birth it's a simple procedure and causes minimal pain. Most religions necessitate it. And it's better to do it younger than older.

You can't equate it to fmg because the make equivalent would be to remove the glans.

I still equate it to FGM: both have musty books written by wandering desert tribes as the sole reasoning and both ignore consent.

[Nzx]

Male Circumcision is very healthy.

Circumcised men have less STDs including HIV

http://www.health.com/health/conditi...272051,00.html

It keeps everything clean..

My parents are not Jewish or some other religion.
They just thought it was better.
And looking back at it, I am grateful for having the chop.

What in the everloving fuck does having a foreskin have to do with STDs? How is it difficult to pull back your foreskin and clean your junk? These are two of the flimsiest excuses for circumcision I've ever heard.

[Atrea]

I still equate it to FGM: both have musty books written by wandering desert tribes as the sole reasoning and both ignore consent.

You can equate it to whatever you like; there are countless millions of atheists who practice it too, but none practice FGM.

It's almost as if one is harmful, where the other is, for all intents and purposes, benign.

[Najnaj]

It's an aesthetic thing. People argue it removes nerves, but most nerves are in the glans, so this doesn't matter. If you do it at a young age like right after birth it's a simple procedure and causes minimal pain. Most religions necessitate it. And it's better to do it younger than older.

You can't equate it to fmg because the make equivalent would be to remove the glans.

It does not remove nerves but it does desensitize the penis. Something that is not necessarily a bad thing but it should still be a choice of course.

[Techno-Druid]

Male Circumcision is very healthy.

Circumcised men have less STDs including HIV

http://www.health.com/health/conditi...272051,00.html

It keeps everything clean..

My parents are not Jewish or some other religion.
They just thought it was better.
And looking back at it, I am grateful for having the chop.

HIV can be avoided through having your partner tested, using clean needles and overall just being sanitary. I understand not everyone in developing countries in Africa have that, but in the developed world, there really is no reason to get a circumcision outside of medical reasons.

[Ryme]

http://www.health.com/health/conditi...272051,00.html

It keeps everything clean..

You'll note these 'studies' always come from the US companies invested in performing and are rarely peer reviewed. The only peer reviewed data I can find suggests it very slightly reduces your chance of urinary tract infection. Down from 2% to 0.2%.