The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not read the full report as I stopped when I saw the headline referred to the minority of female genital mutilations i.e Type III. Anything about the most common types of female genital mutilation (which just involves the removal or a bit of flesh) carried out by appropriately trained people?

And you all wonder why I post so much quoted material....

People do not want to read through whole articles to find the relevant information (I don't blame them) and I certainly don't want to write a summary of everything every time I want to cite relevant material.

The death rate among babies during and immediately after birth is also much higher for those born to mothers with FGM: 15% higher in those with FGM I, 32% higher in those with FGM II, and 55% higher in those with FGM III. It is estimated that in the African context an additional 10 to 20 babies die per 1000 deliveries as a result of the practice.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It could be argued (ie I am talking off the top of my head here) that male initiation practices encourage boys to conform to masculine stereotypes and it is those masculine stereotypes that oppress and control women...*




*I don't use smileys, so feel free to mentally insert one if you are having trouble recognising the tone of this post.

 

[Darat]

I can't find any studies with medical benefits after an extensive look. Are you just arguing semantics?

No - what I was trying to point out that is that because of our own cultural traditions we (our soceity) have not sought out such benifits the way we have for male gential mutilation. One we accept (or rather used to) as right, one we don't.

Women who live in strict Islamic cultures claim they are being taken care of and protected, yadda yadda.

Er tight... yadda, yadda back to you whatever that means in this context!

This is a complex issue I have spent a lot of time on. I've been raised on the idea of respecting cultural differences. That comes into conflict with opposing the cultures in which men oppress women. But after significant 'soul searching' so to speak, I have personally come to the position that the treatment of women in these cultures is intolerable. It's akin to saying slavery or child abuse is OK because it's their culture. Many women do report a preference for their circumstances. I think that is to be expected considering the fact they have been indoctrinated into the culture.

...snip...

Do you not think that the same could be said for male circumcision? I.e.:

.... Many men do report a preference for their circumscision. I think that is to be expected considering the fact they have been indoctrinated into the culture.....

This is not something one can really address without an in depth discussion and that would be a thread hijack anyway. So I can only say that I personally have given this a lot of thought and am convinced the female circumcision is indeed part of the pattern of oppressing women and serves no other purpose.

I'm happy to leave it at that - in may ways I don't disagree with you but I think you are being much too sweeping with your conclusions given it is such a complex matter.

 

[Darat]

And you all wonder why I post so much quoted material....

People do not want to read through whole articles to find the relevant information (I don't blame them) and I certainly don't want to write a summary of everything every time I want to cite relevant material.

That report doesn't answer the question I asked as it would seem to be that the sample they used was of FGMs carried out by "traditional cutters" rather than appropriately trained people. It would be akin to drawing the conclusion that having an appendectomy is fatal from a sample of appendectomies carried out by plumbers. I would be amazed if the complications from male circumcisions in the same communities were not way higher than the figures quoted in this thread for appropriately trained people carrying out the procedures in the USA.

(And remember I am not supporting FGM at all - I think it is abhorrent whichever type we are talking about. All I am hoping to do is get supporters of MGM to realize that if they apply the same reasoning that leads them to reject FGM to MGM they would also reject MGM.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I am not convinced by the argument about sexual pleasure: this does not seem to me to answerable, but even if it was it seems clear that both circumcised and uncircumcised men are happy with their share - it is a bit like intelligence in that way
.

Actually, it isn't unanswerable. My father got circumcised at 14 to, he confessed to me, please his girlfriend. His before and after experiences convinced me that in at least some cases, the comparison is dissapointing.

To be fair, the risks of complications in circimcising an adult are lower than circumcising an infant.

Really, if circumcision's so awesome the kid can be circumcised as a teenager like many Muslims worldwide, and the Maasai. It'd confer the same - questionable - benefits, and it'd have lower risks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No - what I was trying to point out that is that because of our own cultural traditions we (our soceity) have not sought out such benifits the way we have for male gential mutilation. One we accept (or rather used to) as right, one we don't.

This gets into that cultural bias part of the debate I was staying out of. I looked at demonstrated medical research be it references to UTIs or the lack of evidence there is significant loss of sexual satisfaction. With those choosing to circumcise their sons for religious or cultural reasons (such as having the son look like daddy or mom's preference for circumcised men), I merely said they should be allowed to make that choice.

If I didn't believe what I do about the problem of oppressed women, I would be more neutral about it. But like I said, I have thought that one through extensively.

... yadda, yadda back to you whatever that means in this context!

It just means the usual reasons given.

Do you not think that the same could be said for male circumcision? I.e.:

.... Many men do report a preference for their circumscision. I think that is to be expected considering the fact they have been indoctrinated into the culture.....

There is no doubt. It goes both ways.

It seems that when I defend the right to choose here I am continually pegged as advocating everyone circumcise their kids. I am advocating individual choice. But there are people who think their view against male circumcision is a view that should be imposed on everyone else. They are attacking those of us who are simply saying one can equally argue for or against.

I'm happy to leave it at that - in may ways I don't disagree with you but I think you are being much too sweeping with your conclusions given it is such a complex matter.

It might be too sweeping. I have seen little evidence female circumcision is used in any context other than cultures which oppress women.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

(And remember I am not supporting FGM at all - I think it is abhorrent whichever type we are talking about. All I am hoping to do is get supporters of MGM to realize that if they apply the same reasoning that leads them to reject FGM to MGM they would also reject MGM.)

Good luck with that. What usually happens is their love of parental choice and/or infant male circumcision dominates their thinking so much they reply that they would except some forms of what is currently classed as FGM to be carried out on girls. See Joe's and Skeptigirl's posts. They've already started doing it. Logically consistent but morally bankrupt.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I thought the real reason circumcision was invented was to make it less convenient for boys to masturbate. It's easier when you have a foreskin to roll, minimising friction, over the glans. Without the foreskin you need to rub the glans directly, causing friction and requiring lubrication.

There's more than one way to skin a sausage.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There's more than one way to skin a sausage.

You are not allowed to use that metaphor in this context.

 

[Loss Leader]

Except those that you spawn, right?

Yup!

You don't like it? Come and get me. Oh wait, you can't. The entire weight of Western law agrees with me and not you. Too bad, so sad.

 

[kellyb]

I found one. See above. Not that I expect it will count as far as you're concerned.

Really?

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

I wonder what the mechanism is there?
I'm thinking all STDs are adapted to intact genitalia (male and female) so removing a big chunk of their normal habitat impares their ability to transmit.

And I'm still convinced that there has to be some way to remove some...parts...from baby girls that would reduce their UTI risk.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yup!

You don't like it? Come and get me. Oh wait, you can't. The entire weight of Western law agrees with me and not you. Too bad, so sad.

This may come as a terrible shock to you, but A) merely because something is legal, that doesn't make it right, and B) just because your archaic religion insists on something that doesn't make it right, either.

 

[kellyb]

Good luck with that. What usually happens is their love of parental choice and/or infant male circumcision dominates their thinking so much they reply that they would except some forms of what is currently classed as FGM to be carried out on girls. See Joe's and Skeptigirl's posts. They've already started doing it. Logically consistent but morally bankrupt.

Gotta cure the cognitive dissonance somehow.
If that means following a weird standard to it's wacked out logical end, so be it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That report doesn't answer the question I asked as it would seem to be that the sample they used was of FGMs carried out by "traditional cutters" rather than appropriately trained people. It would be akin to drawing the conclusion that having an appendectomy is fatal from a sample of appendectomies carried out by plumbers. I would be amazed if the complications from male circumcisions in the same communities were not way higher than the figures quoted in this thread for appropriately trained people carrying out the procedures in the USA.

(And remember I am not supporting FGM at all - I think it is abhorrent whichever type we are talking about. All I am hoping to do is get supporters of MGM to realize that if they apply the same reasoning that leads them to reject FGM to MGM they would also reject MGM.)

When you spoke of people who argue male circumcision is OK while female circumcision is never OK, I assumed you were speaking of the practices that one encounters, rather than some hypothetical FGM.

The brief report by the WHO on the study doesn't mention the study considered the quality of the procedures, but there are some FGMs done in medical centers in Africa. I am not sure of the proportion. Even so, there appears to be something about even type 1 procedures that is increasing risks long after the procedure should have healed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gotta cure the cognitive dissonance somehow.
If that means following a weird standard to it's wacked out logical end, so be it.

This is absurd. I hope you know that. This kind of nonsense is why this discussion ends up being 40 pages long.

What would be inconsistent would be if I went with some fundy belief in this case and ignored the evidence such as I promote in everything else.

 

[kellyb]

When you spoke of people who argue male circumcision is OK while female circumcision is never OK, I assumed you were speaking of the practices that one encounters, rather than some hypothetical FGM.

The brief report by the WHO on the study doesn't mention the study considered the quality of the procedures, but there are some FGMs done in medical centers in Africa. I am not sure of the proportion. Even so, there appears to be something about even type 1 procedures that is increasing risks long after the procedure should have healed.

It doesn't appear to be all that rare:

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/FRONTIERS/FR_FinalReports/Kenya_FGC_Med.pdf

Medicalization of FGC
In most societies in Kenya (as in other parts of Africa), traditional practitioners, such as excisors, traditional birth attendants, healers and medicine men, usually perform FGC. Recently, however, professional health personnel in a number of countries have become more involved in cutting female children (Egypt, El-Gibaly et al. 2002; Nigeria, Mandera 2000). For many, trained midwives, nurses, and other health cadres have taken over from the traditional practitioners and now play an important role in sustaining the practice by ‘medicalizing’ the procedure. The increased involvement of medical staff in circumcision is thought to be a response to the emphasis on health risks that has characterized anti-FGC campaigns (Shell-Duncan, 2001). Having the procedure performed by trained practitioners, and preferably in a health facility setting, is thought to minimize the health risks and pain while sustaining the practice to meet cultural norms.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This is absurd. I hope you know that. This kind of nonsense is why this discussion ends up being 40 pages long.

What would be inconsistent would be if I went with some fundy belief in this case and ignored the evidence such as I promote in everything else.

You ignore the evidence I post. Evidence of this claim? This thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really?

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

If additional research supported this finding I would support type 1 female circumcision in high HIV prevalence areas. The problem here Ivor is in regard to male circumcision and HIV there were many studies including prospective randomized clinical trials before the conclusion was drawn that the observed effect was real. In addition, the route of HIV entry through cells in the foreskin was well documented. For women, the corresponding surface area is minuscule, the route of entry is likely the vaginal mucosa and/or the cervix and uterus, and there is an additional risk of getting HIV from the procedure that is not necessarily going to be outweighed by the benefit of the number of cases prevented.

More research, fine. A conclusion already, I think not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You ignore the evidence I post. Evidence of this claim? This thread.

I try not to ignore evidence. But you certainly are a mite impatient.

Since you are on a roll here, how about posting the evidence I originally asked for? That is the evidence that male circumcision is as harmful as the anti-circ activists claim it is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fair warning, Ivor. I'm logging off now. I'll be back later. I wouldn't want you to worry I am ignoring your evidence.