Circumcision ques

[Wolvenstar]

If you can't see the different between the removal of foreskin and the "removal of the clitoris, all of the labia minor and part or all of the labia majora, and the pinning or stitching of the two sides of the vulva closed," you don't belong in med school.

 

I wasn't speaking in medical terms, but in terms of human rights, neccesity/why it's done. Both are archaic and non-medically relevant practices. They both are harmful to infants. Other than the fact that the male penis can still function relatively well without the foreskin, it is still a needless and barbaric practice, just female circumcision.

 

Oh and while male circumcision is indeed accepted in modern day society (mostly because of how long it has been around) it still falls under the term of mutilation: "Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body." It is a irreparable disfigurement of a conspicuous part of the body.

 

You should be less willing to insult people and moe concerned about the rights of male children. Females are not the only ones who can experience abuse. I think Carabiner summed up the reasons why some cultures still practice female circumcision quite nicely, and how it isn't all about some sort of "male domination" perhaps you should be more empathic to both genders. Perhaps you would also like to tell me that harsh punishment (ie: striking) boys for bad behavior is different than the same punishment being administered to girls? Really I don't know if medicine is a good idea for you, if you are so willing to overlook the potential harm that may come to boys from parental decisions, but are gunghoe to defend women. I mean equality is what society is supposed to be gunning for, perhaps you should try taking some classes for it. I know some quite friendly women from the women's rights group in my town that would love to educate you on how we should treat males and females with the same amount of care and respect.

[HBP]

since you got 10 interviews, you are the smart one?

 

Didn't you read the bull**** in that post?

[A-Stark]

Okay, Wolvenstar, suggesting that circumcision results in "disfigurement" and represents "abuse" is frankly offensive and false.

 

I should add that "being in medicine" does not require adopting a moralistic stand on what are established customs.

[Laika]

I wasn't speaking in medical terms, but in terms of human rights, neccesity/why it's done. Both are archaic and non-medically relevant practices.

 

You may not think it's a medically relevant practice, but the world's preeminent medical journal apparently thinks it's appropriate to discuss. Have you read the article you referred to earlier?

 

Oh and while male circumcision is indeed accepted in modern day society (mostly because of how long it has been around) it still falls under the term of mutilation: "Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body." It is a irreparable disfigurement of a conspicuous part of the body.

 

By that definition, an amputation due to diabetic neuropathy is mutilation as well. I don't understand why you provided the above definition or how it constructively contributes to this discussion.

 

You should be less willing to insult people and moe concerned about the rights of male children. Females are not the only ones who can experience abuse. I think Carabiner summed up the reasons why some cultures still practice female circumcision quite nicely, and how it isn't all about some sort of "male domination" perhaps you should be more empathic to both genders. Perhaps you would also like to tell me that harsh punishment (ie: striking) boys for bad behavior is different than the same punishment being administered to girls? Really I don't know if medicine is a good idea for you, if you are so willing to overlook the potential harm that may come to boys from parental decisions, but are gunghoe to defend women. I mean equality is what society is supposed to be gunning for, perhaps you should try taking some classes for it. I know some quite friendly women from the women's rights group in my town that would love to educate you on how we should treat males and females with the same amount of care and respect.

 

OK, fine, can't argue this point. What you've seen here is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately online, you are not able to fully appreciate my unbounded misandry.

 

I didn't mean to come across as overly harsh, but I feel like lumping together male a female circumcision is a disservice to having an informed debate about either practice.

[ldnk]

See my previous post. You're only defending this practice because it is common around you, therefore "acceptable". Chopping off pieces of a baby's body without cause would never fly if it wasn't for that precedent.

 

To say that the baby's consent is not required is absurd. If the "anything else" you are referring to includes things like immunizations, etc. these are clearly preventative, whereas pediatric associations agree that routine circumcision does not offer sufficient preventative advantages. If the case of phimosis or other medically necessary conditions, the situation is completely different. But what routine circumcision often amounts to is no more than irreversible cosmetic surgery performed without consent.

 

 

Studies have shown that circumcision can lead to a reduction in STIs. There was a recent article just published in the N Engl J Med that I believe is still under free access due to recent release. HSV, HPV and syph transmission is reduced in circumcision vs. non-circumcised individuals. It has also shown positive signs of reduced HIV transfer. So to say that there are "no benefits" is outright incorrect.

[Wolvenstar]

Okay, Wolvenstar, suggesting that circumcision results in "disfigurement" and represents "abuse" is frankly offensive and false.

 

I should add that "being in medicine" does not require adopting a moralistic stand on what are established customs.

 

actually according to a dictionary it does. What you have to understand is that you need to be less sensitive and realize that disfigurements do not by neccessity make someone less. Technically an amputation whether warranted or not (as in through accident, or if a limb needs to be amputated by doctors)would count as a disfigurement in technical term. The fact is that you view a disfigurement as something that can be horrible wrong, whereas the technical meaning of is what I stated and thus circumcision falls underneath (the foreskin which is a natural part of the body is removed/destroyed, and this is irreparable).

 

If you want to know why I thought posting the definition would contribute. I posted the definition (which was found in a dictionary) because if I just put that circumcision was a form of mutilitation, people would say that I am saying this just because I don't support circumcision. I put the definition in to show that in technical terms circumcision is a form of mutilation.

 

Of course this with cause some outrage because some people see mutilation as going hand in hand with abuse and torture, and therefore equating to being wrong.

 

While I myself am not a part of some human right's groups that believe that it is abusive to circumsize a child due to the fact that they are not old enough to make an informed decision, I figured a little playing devil's advocate wouldn't hurt on this bombshell topic. However you should realize that some people (myself not included) would find it offensive and false to say that circumcision isn't a disfigurement, or abuse. So really you can realize that there is two sides to this arguement, and since it is a arguement over something that has arisen culturally there is no ultimate true/false or right side/wrong side, same as in argueing whether abortion is right or wrong. This is a social construct that has been integrated into mainstream society.

 

 

 

 

Laika;

 

I must given you credit on extreme patience, and forgive my boorishness in the previous post.

 

I actually wanted to prove a different point by showing how if a person, like myself, were to take another's words, like yourself, and twist them to fit the meaning they wanted (like saying you are sexist against males), this would take away from the main arguement in the thread. You didn't really take the bait and try to argue that you are not a sexist quite well. I have made similar statements which could be taken to mean something wrong (such as how I suggested you were sexist) if someone was ignorant enough to do so, and have found people on the site who in fact did. It was my intention use this thread and ourselves as an example of how doing such is wrong.

 

thank you for being an unknowning participant, I hope I haven't truly offended you.

 

 

 

 

Back to the main topic:

 

 

There are people here who have stated several times that there are studies showing that circumcision does have medical relevance. These people must realize that there are also studies showing that these findings are false and that circumcision does not have any medical benefit to the individual.

 

As of yet in the global health society there has not been a concrete and universal stance on this subject. So it is impossible for one to say that circumcision has been 100% proven medically irrelavent or relavent.

 

I am siding with the large number of medical, educational, and health organizations that do not believe that circumcision is a medically relevant procedure. Please realize that while you may quote this one article in the new england journal all you wish, the publication of this one article does not discount or make invalid all other previous research and publications on the subject.

 

The Canadian Pediatric Society, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and American Cancer Society are three such organizations that do not support the belief that circumcision is a medically relevant procedure. There are other organizations as well, but I doubt that by listing all of them that it would impact anyone on here significantly.

 

So while yes Laiki (and others), a rather prominent medical journal thought that it was a significant enough study to publish it, that does not make the findings concrete. This prominent medical journal does not on it's own determine what is and what isn't medically relevant.

 

 

As Carabiner did, I must protest Satsuma, again quoting the controversy that occurred in the states. Indeed had there been no public outcry, the female circumcision would have done ahead.

 

I view circumcision both male and female to be social constructs. One having arisen in ancient times predominately in the jewish population and one arising in a different population.

 

I also want to underscore carabiner's mentioning that female circumcision is done for more than just trying to make females submissive to men.

 

Quote:

"As well, if you read up on the accounts of female genital alterations in Africa, they are done for a multitude of purposes, not just for male domination. It can occur anywhere from the ages of 2 or 3 to the teens. In some areas, it is a ritualistic bonding for women, or a coming of age, or a way to give empowerment to women. Whether or not these accounts are based on "false consciousness" is a debate that can go on forever; I'm just saying that I don't think the issue is as black and white. Also, demonizing the women who continue the practice (least of all by using the word "mutilation") only results in alienation and less safe conditions"

 

 

 

I also would like to hear someone's explanation for the question also posed by carabiner:

 

'If non-invasive female circumcision is still regarded as child abuse, why isn't male circumcision, besides the fact that it's received the seal of approval of "tradition"? '

 

I would quite like to see some sort of answer, and please remember that the medical community has not decided the matter of whether circumcision is medically warranted or not. So while you may refer to studies done, this doesn't completely prove that it is medically warranted, or give reason as to why society still accepts male circumcision.

 

 

also please don't distract the thread by discussing what I pulled earlier with Laika, if you are offended Laiki please private message me and we can discuss this, but I would rather not see anyone pull this thread away from the debate about circumcision.

[Satsuma]

 

As Carabiner did, I must protest Satsuma, again quoting the controversy that occurred in the states. Indeed had there been no public outcry, the female circumcision would have done ahead.

 

 

But I didn't even add anything since my last post for you to protest.

 

My points are made. I don't feel the need to rehash points that are supported by the WHO, Canadian law, and human rights groups. They are there and people reading them can feel how they want about them.

 

I think that you have made your points and views on the male circumcision clear. And if you want to go on comparing "non-invasive" female circumcision with male circumcision, go ahead. (comparing "invasive" female mutilation just doesn't make any sense) But I really don't even think that that debate is very fruitful. And surely you realize that the non-invasive procedure is not the common practice. None of your points compel me to view these 2 issues as equivalent. And I really think they are best debated separately.

 

And quoting Caribiner stating that female genital mutilation is done for reasons other than control...is not a very strong source.

 

I am now done. Because the only points I wanted to make on this topic, are in my previous post.

[A-Stark]

Dictionaries are not repositories of "technical" information, nor are definitions themselves exact. A loaded term is a loaded term regardless of the kind of appeal to authority you engage in. By extension, any surgical procedure resulting in any kind of scar and/or invasiveness could be dismissed as "disfiguring" or "mutilating" - after all, a CABG will leave wires in the sternum often permanently. What matters is the context.

[Wolvenstar]

But I didn't even add anything since my last post for you to protest.

 

My points are made. I don't feel the need to rehash points that are supported by the WHO, Canadian law, and human rights groups. They are there and people reading them can feel how they want about them.

 

I think that you have made your points and views on the male circumcision clear. And if you want to go on comparing "non-invasive" female circumcision with male circumcision, go ahead. (comparing "invasive" female mutilation just doesn't make any sense) But I really don't even think that that debate is very fruitful. And surely you realize that the non-invasive procedure is not the common practice. None of your points compel me to view these 2 issues as equivalent. And I really think they are best debated separately.

 

And quoting Caribiner stating that female genital mutilation is done for reasons other than control...is not a very strong source.

 

I am now done. Because the only points I wanted to make on this topic, are in my previous post.

 

I wanted to protest the point you made that female circumcision was only done in an attempt to establish dominance over females. I had thought your beliefs and thinking on this to be rather narrow and wanted to point out carabiner's explaination on other reasons for female circumcision in society's that have this procedure.

[Wolvenstar]

Dictionaries are not repositories of "technical" information, nor are definitions themselves exact. A loaded term is a loaded term regardless of the kind of appeal to authority you engage in. By extension, any surgical procedure resulting in any kind of scar and/or invasiveness could be dismissed as "disfiguring" or "mutilating" - after all, a CABG will leave wires in the sternum often permanently. What matters is the context.

 

regardless of your personal opinions of the dictionary, I have made it clear that disfigurement is a technical term used to describe the occurance where a part of the body is irreparably changed. You find it to be offensive because you see the word disfigurement to be have a negative meaning. I see it as being a neutral term used to describe something being done to the human body.

 

As i stated before, An amputation whether is technically considered a disfigurement even if it was done to save the person's life. Context does not matter, tone does. I am not saying using the term disfigured to belittle anyone who has been circumsized, I am not using the term to harass or bully anyone. It is like the slang terms for ethnicity. I could use the term "black" when describing a person, I am not belittling the person, I just want to point out there ethnicity so that whoever I am describing the person to will have a more accurate mental image of the person. If I were to say something like "He is some crazy black man" that would be negative and racist.

 

Saying that circumcision is a disfigurement is not belittling or negative, it is being technical and it is correct. There is no implied disability from this, or that the person is somehow lesser from this. The term may not be very politically correct is this day, but I feel that many people are over-sensitive to certain words themselves.

 

I mean look at yourself, I in no way implied that a circumsized man was somehow a lesser person or was crippled, and yet when you saw that one word, you took offense. Since you are either in med school or planning on applying to med school, you should have the comprehensive ability and maturity to read my statements and understand that I was not putting down men who are circumsized, nor have I in any of my statements said anything derogatory about circumsized men. However whether lacking the comprehensive ability or maturity to understand this, you see the word "disfigurement" as being derogatory in and of itself, and that if used must imply something negative about whoever the term is being applied to. This however is not the case, and you should be able to realize that.

[mbene085]

regardless of your personal opinions of the dictionary, I have made it clear that disfigurement is a technical term used to describe the occurance where a part of the body is irreparably changed. You find it to be offensive because you see the word disfigurement to be have a negative meaning. I see it as being a neutral term used to describe something being done to the human body.

 

I thought High School would be the last place I'd have to hear people quote a dictionary in order to try to support their argument. Following the dictionary definition of "removal of a conspicuous or essential part of the body", cutting or shaving a child's hair is a disfigurement, as it's certainly a conspicuous part of the body.

 

And, more importantly,

I also would like to hear someone's explanation for the question also posed by carabiner:

 

'If non-invasive female circumcision is still regarded as child abuse, why isn't male circumcision, besides the fact that it's received the seal of approval of "tradition"? '

 

I would quite like to see some sort of answer, and please remember that the medical community has not decided the matter of whether circumcision is medically warranted or not. So while you may refer to studies done, this doesn't completely prove that it is medically warranted, or give reason as to why society still accepts male circumcision.

 

There are two clear differences: 1) Intent, and 2) Functional impact. In the case of intent (as has been pointed out), the purpose of female genital mutilation (which has euphemistically been dubbed "female circumsicion" in an attempt to validate the practice) is done with the intention of denying a woman sexual pleasure. This sexually disempowers women, and makes sex a male-centred activity. And in terms of functional impact - a circumcised man can enjoy sex just like an uncircumsized one, has no difficulty urinating, etc, etc. A circumsized and uncircumsized penis both do the same thing. There are anecdotal cases of adult circumcision patients who describe sex as different, but equally pleasurable compared to pre-circumcision, but it's difficult to gauge sexual pleasure, but the key here is that it does not deny a man sexual pleasure, as does a female genital mutilation.

 

Does that sufficiently address the fundamental differences between male circumcision and female genital mutilation?

[A-Stark]

regardless of your personal opinions of the dictionary, I have made it clear that disfigurement is a technical term used to describe the occurance where a part of the body is irreparably changed. You find it to be offensive because you see the word disfigurement to be have a negative meaning. I see it as being a neutral term used to describe something being done to the human body.

 

So "disfigurement" is an entirely neutral term then? You are using said term to bolster an argument that Circumcision is Wrong and Immoral. Not sure how that's "neutral".

 

As i stated before, An amputation whether is technically considered a disfigurement even if it was done to save the person's life. Context does not matter, tone does. I am not saying using the term disfigured to belittle anyone who has been circumsized, I am not using the term to harass or bully anyone. It is like the slang terms for ethnicity. I could use the term "black" when describing a person, I am not belittling the person, I just want to point out there ethnicity so that whoever I am describing the person to will have a more accurate mental image of the person. If I were to say something like "He is some crazy black man" that would be negative and racist.

 

Nonsense. Disfigurement most certainly has negative connotations. Consider these:

 

Vietnamese boy with facial disfigurement to consult U.S. doctors

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/06/27/makeup-permanent.html

Face-transplant woman looks 'like everyone else'

 

Saying that circumcision is a disfigurement is not belittling or negative, it is being technical and it is correct. There is no implied disability from this, or that the person is somehow lesser from this. The term may not be very politically correct is this day, but I feel that many people are over-sensitive to certain words themselves.

 

Likewise a jagged scar down someone's cheek implies no disability nor makes the person "lesser". I can think of few instances where said person would consider it a "neutral" feature of their face.

 

I mean look at yourself, I in no way implied that a circumsized man was somehow a lesser person or was crippled, and yet when you saw that one word, you took offense. Since you are either in med school or planning on applying to med school, you should have the comprehensive ability and maturity to read my statements and understand that I was not putting down men who are circumsized, nor have I in any of my statements said anything derogatory about circumsized men. However whether lacking the comprehensive ability or maturity to understand this, you see the word "disfigurement" as being derogatory in and of itself, and that if used must imply something negative about whoever the term is being applied to. This however is not the case, and you should be able to realize that

 

Blah, blah, ad hominem this, ad hominem that. "Disfigurement" is not derogatory, but synonyms such as "defacement" or "deformity" similarly represent an abnormality with is undesirable and, correspondingly, may be seen as something to stay away from. All the backpeddling in the world won't change the fact that "disfigurement" is associated with the sort of difficulties and stigma due to "abnormality" or "malformation" discussed here.

 

(And this whole "you're in med school so you should not disagree with my obviously cogent and irrefutable and unassailable arguments" thing is stupid.)

[Carabiner]

Satsuma:

 

My points are made. I don't feel the need to rehash points that are supported by the WHO, Canadian law, and human rights groups. They are there and people reading them can feel how they want about them.

 

I think that you have made your points and views on the male circumcision clear. And if you want to go on comparing "non-invasive" female circumcision with male circumcision, go ahead. (comparing "invasive" female mutilation just doesn't make any sense) But I really don't even think that that debate is very fruitful. And surely you realize that the non-invasive procedure is not the common practice. None of your points compel me to view these 2 issues as equivalent. And I really think they are best debated separately.

 

And quoting Caribiner stating that female genital mutilation is done for reasons other than control...is not a very strong source.

 

I am now done. Because the only points I wanted to make on this topic, are in my previous post.

I'm pretty done with the discussion as well; I think I made my points clear. (Although if you're interested in reading up more on female genital alterations and the different reasonings behind it, feel free to PM me. I wrote my undergrad thesis on male and female circumcision.)

 

At the end of the day, I think I share the same views with you on female genital alterations. However, I strongly believe that calling it "mutilation" doesn't help change the minds of those who practice it; it only alienates people more.

 

As to circumcision (the original question!), I'm still against it being done for non-medical purposes. That's the position I'll take until there's clearer evidence that male circumcision has a beneficial effect.

[Talon01]

I wish I had come into this thread sooner!

[Wolvenstar]

lol ya my interest in this thread is waning, and now people are starting to just get annoying. lol I was never against circumcision to begin with (although some idoit will pop up about my little speel on laika, which i explained.). Wait, let me make that more clear, i don't need a bunch of people bothering me with posts about how i actually hate circumcision and that they know what I feel and think more than i myself do. Personally I am not against the social tradition in some cultures of male circumcision. I do not believe it to be a medically relevant procedure and take heart in the fact that so many health and medical related organizations have taken a stance to say it isn't medically relavent.

 

I should also pop in because it seems to have come up several times, that I also believe that cultures which practice female circumcision (which I am not a part of) do not do so solely for the purpose of dominating females. I believe carabiner has severl solid points on why such a thing occurs, and that the incident over this in the states underscores how it isn't for the purpose of sole female domination. I suppose I should now state that I believe in equal rights as someone will feel the need to labell me as someone who does not believe in equality.