Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Professor Yaffle]

I am quite aware of the many uses of the term ironic, and it is quite ironic that you use the word mutilated to refer to men who were circumcised at birth, but would not use that same word to refer to it to men who voluntarily underwent the procedure. I suppose hypocritical might be a better word, perhaps?

Its not at all hypocritical. After all, surgical alteration of baby girls' genitals is mutilation (or do you disagree?), but if an adult woman chooses to have her genitals altered because of dissatisfaction with appearance etc (eg labioplasty), we call it cosmetic surgery. Precisely the same as we should for men.

 

[Darat]

Its not at all hypocritical. After all, surgical alteration of baby girls' genitals is mutilation (or do you disagree?), but if an adult woman chooses to have her genitals altered because of dissatisfaction with appearance etc (eg labioplasty etc), we call it cosmetic surgery. Precisely the same as we should for men.

Agree with that but I do consider a lot of body modification of the drastic kind mutilation whether a person has decided to do it to themselves or not. For example penile subincision (which incidentally has also been a normalised genital mutilation).

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'd agree that the borderline between extreme cosmetic surgery and self mutilation is a very fuzzy one. But that has no impact on the involuntary mutilation that some children have forced upon them, as I'm sure you agree.

 

[The Big Dog]

Its not at all hypocritical. After all, surgical alteration of baby girls' genitals is mutilation (or do you disagree?), but if an adult woman chooses to have her genitals altered because of dissatisfaction with appearance etc (eg labioplasty), we call it cosmetic surgery. Precisely the same as we should for men.

I have already acknowledged that people are going to persist in using a word that as you have already acknowledged has negative connotations.

Who am I to explain to them how to make their argument more effective?

/and right after I say that I will simply note that I find replies that parse out the original post into little quoted sentences very annoying (your post is of course not an example of that)

 

[Rolfe]

This is just the classic back-off tactic of "I don't like your tone, sir!"

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I have already acknowledged that people are going to persist in using a word that as you have already acknowledged has negative connotations.

Who am I to explain to them how to make their argument more effective?

It only has negative connotations because we tend to agree that mutilation is a bad thing to do. If circumcision fits the definition of mutilation, then it is a bad thing to do. Not using the word might help you to ignore that fact, but it doesn't make it any less true. Pardon me for being unwilling to collude in your cognitive dissonance avoidance.

 

[The Big Dog]

It only has negative connotations because we tend to agree that mutilation is a bad thing to do. If circumcision fits the definition of mutilation, then it is a bad thing to do. Not using the word might help you to ignore that fact, but it doesn't make it any less true. Pardon me for being unwilling to collude in your cognitive dissonance avoidance.

Oh no cognitive avoidance here my friend! The argument is circumcision = mutilation= bad thing to do.

The problem is of course that again it is begging the question.

Let us once again use an example to elucidate our understanding! I had my tonsils removed when I was a youth, Was there less drastic procedures that could have been used? OF course! would anyone in their right mind refer to my throat being mutilated? Perhaps some anti-tonsillectomy fanatic might do so as part of his campaign to ban the procedure, but I am certain that all reasonable people would recognize that it is simply inflamed rhetoric, silly divisive and pointless.

 

[jdp]

A link does not make it so, please show the logic that leads you to state my argument is fallacious because it is "begging the question".

Good luck getting an answer to this Darat. I am still waiting to hear how I was 'begging the question'. 9 days and counting.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am quite aware of the many uses of the term ironic, and it is quite ironic that you use the word mutilated to refer to men who were circumcised at birth, but would not use that same word to refer to it to men who voluntarily underwent the procedure. I suppose hypocritical might be a better word, perhaps?

You are begging the question because you are providing your own definition of the word mutilation, and then concluding that it is mutilation.

The fact that you would not use that word to refer to adults should be a telling indication of the flaws in your logic.

But I see that you intend to PERSIST in this labeling? You'll forgive me if I take that into account in considering whatever other "arguments" you may wish to muster.

Good luck getting an answer to this Darat. I am still waiting to hear how I was 'begging the question'. 9 days and counting.

Helpfully quoted!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh no cognitive avoidance here my friend! The argument is circumcision = mutilation= bad thing to do.

The problem is of course that again it is begging the question.

Let us once again use an example to elucidate our understanding! I had my tonsils removed when I was a youth, Was there less drastic procedures that could have been used? OF course! would anyone in their right mind refer to my throat being mutilated? Perhaps some anti-tonsillectomy fanatic might do so as part of his campaign to ban the procedure, but I am certain that all reasonable people would recognize that it is simply inflamed rhetoric, silly divisive and pointless.

If your tonsils were removed from you when you had no symptoms of ill health/no medical indication, I would indeed call it mutilation.

I would also like to hear how I am begging the question.

 

[The Big Dog]

I would also like to hear how I am begging the question.

I thought I made it very clear:

"The argument is circumcision = mutilation= bad thing to do."

There has been a very fluid use of the word mutilation in this thread, to wit:

from Darat:

"Regarding the use of the term circumcision v. genital mutilation. I am trying to use them in a consistent manner, so a medically required procedure that requires the removal of some or all of the foreskin skin I will call a circumcision.

A non-medically required non-consensual removal of all or some of the foreskin I will use the label genital mutilation."

It is the same procedure, of course, and of course it again BEGS THE QUESTION just what exactly is "non-medically required."

 

[ddt]

Let us once again use an example to elucidate our understanding! I had my tonsils removed when I was a youth, Was there less drastic procedures that could have been used? OF course! would anyone in their right mind refer to my throat being mutilated? Perhaps some anti-tonsillectomy fanatic might do so as part of his campaign to ban the procedure, but I am certain that all reasonable people would recognize that it is simply inflamed rhetoric, silly divisive and pointless.

Did you have them removed as a matter of routine - as once was indeed habit - or because there was an infection or another concrete medical cause to do so?

The fact that you omit this crucial fact is telling, because tonsillectomy is a nice parallel to circumcision. Once it also was a routine operation, performed without a clear indication. We learned better.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I thought I made it very clear:

"The argument is circumcision = mutilation= bad thing to do."

There has been a very fluid use of the word mutilation in this thread, to wit:

from Darat:

"Regarding the use of the term circumcision v. genital mutilation. I am trying to use them in a consistent manner, so a medically required procedure that requires the removal of some or all of the foreskin skin I will call a circumcision.

A non-medically required non-consensual removal of all or some of the foreskin I will use the label genital mutilation."

It is the same procedure, of course, and of course it again BEGS THE QUESTION just what exactly is "non-medically required."

Doctors don't have much trouble knowing when removing other body parts is required, rather than cutting them off willy-nilly. The same procedure would be used to amputate the gangrenous leg of a man as would be used to amputate a perfectly healthy leg. But one is mutilation and the other isn't. I don't see why it isn't obvious to you. If the child has no symptoms, no abnormal test results etc that indicate that removing a part of him/her is a very good idea, then it is mutilation. Where there is some abnormality or symptom of ill health, I'm happy to leave it to the doctor to decide when an amputation of a body part might be required. Hint: having a foreskin is not a symptom or an abnormality.

 

[jdp]

Helpfully quoted!

Sweet, now you can follow up on my question.

 

[Matthew Best]

Doctors don't have much trouble knowing when removing other body parts is required, rather than cutting them off willy-nilly.

I see what you did there!

 

[The Big Dog]

Sweet, now you can follow up on my question.

No thanks, too thread drifty....

 

[Wildy]

Since we seem to be at an impasse regarding terminology, how about we call it "male genital cutting" in line with the term "female genital cutting" which I believe came about to appease the proponents of FGM who complained that calling it "mutilation" wrong and stuff.

 

[rustypouch]

Then you should not bring it up INSIDE the discussion either.

Frankly, I automatically discount a person's "arguments" anytime someone intentionally refers to circumcised men as "mutilated" because it is unnecessarily provocative, emotional and intentionally offensive. If you can't make your argument without it, it probably is not worth making at all.

This has been explained by people on your side in this discussion, but it clearly has not been taken into consideration. And that is, of course, your choice.

Yes, it is emotional and provocative.

So what?

For some reason, I'm really not too worried about offending people who espouse needlessly hurting babies.

 

[The Big Dog]

Since we seem to be at an impasse regarding terminology, how about we call it "male genital cutting" in line with the term "female genital cutting" which I believe came about to appease the proponents of FGM who complained that calling it "mutilation" wrong and stuff.

Or how about "circumcision"?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, it is emotional and provocative.

So what?

For some reason, I'm really not too worried about offending people who espouse needlessly hurting babies.

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people, the vast majority of which are not circumcised men, referring to circumcised men as having "mutilated genitals" despite explanations that is not helping.

And they are damned if they are going to stop because.... hell if I know.