Call for circumcision safeguards after baby death

[SerendipityJane]

No excuse in the UK. Ever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj2r8x2k4yo

Enforcement difficulty isn’t an abstract inconvenience in child protection — it directly affects child safety.

When a practice goes underground, children are less visible, families disengage from health services, and complications become more dangerous, not less.

Even with FGM — where the harms are severe and the law is absolute — enforcement relies heavily on prevention, education, travel orders and safeguarding plans, not mass prosecutions.

And that’s in a context where the practice is already illegal almost everywhere, unlike circumcision.

There are a number of countries that have banned religious slaughter practices but no country that has, as far as I know, banned infant male circumcision. Only one I’m aware of that ever materially considered it (Iceland). Some have put in place regulation eg that require qualifications / presence of a doctor or nurse etc. In the U.K., within the Jewish community it is common if not more common (at least outside the ultra orthodox) for the mohel to be a qualified doctor. Regulation would up those numbers. It probably would push many ultra orthodox communities underground rather than have those outside the community involved but who knows. Can’t speak to the Muslim community.

I know all that - I have worked in child protection.

Establishing that child mutilation is illegal is about child protection - it is about stopping adults abusing babies. Some of these adults will try and circumvent the law, but in the end we cannot have a society that condones this.

We have laws against FGM and know that some parents will take their chidlren abroad or otherwise circumvent this, but, quite rightly, we do not repeal that law and say, "OK, you are finding ways round it .... let's just make it legal."

We have moved on from barbarism - human sacrifice is a thing of the past, as are many other unacceptable practices. MGM is the next step to civilization.

So should we make child sexual abuse legal. Make sure children will get appropriate health checks and treatment because it isn't driven underground.

Look, I disagree strongly with ritual infant circumcision. But it is in no way equivalent to CSA. False comparisons don't help efforts to stop it.

Exactly

Carla: given that you say you disagree with non therapeutic , non-consensual circumcision of babies, what is your proposal for seeing it decrease and eventually stop?

It decreased to a tiny level amongst non-religious groups in the UK. It is decreasing in the U.S. variously due to the NHS declaring that it was unnecessary for health , and not available as an NHS service, and in the U.S because of discussion, education and lobby groups.

How do you think those more ideologically motivated to circumcise can be encouraged to think again?

Or do you think it is OK to simply continue?

You have energetically argued against every evidence that it is not without harm, that the communities here are less liberal than elsewhere, and emphatically emphasised how apparently essential it is to certain communities.

So basically you are happy for something you say you disagree with to continue as is?

I haven't 'energetically argued against every evidence that it is not without harm' .

I agree strongly that infant circumcision is intrinsically wrong - the baby cannot consent.

How do you think those more ideologically motivated to circumcise can be encouraged to think again?- I don't think they can, at least not right away. On the thread I started, I suggested multiple times measures like mandating pain relief, mandating it is done in a clinic.

Or do you think it is OK to simply continue?- No! But I think banning it will just mean the strictest groups will migrate to Israel.

These communities have had serious concerns about sexual abuse cases, enabled by small size, respect for religious leaders and closed-off environment. Lack of education & others. These are more of a priority, to me, to protect kids from than circumcision. Bans that encourage them to close off from support services or move to Israel do not help those things.

that the communities here are less liberal than elsewhere- they are. But Haredi in NY or Israel are not going to give it up either.

FGM already meets the statutory threshold for serious harm and ongoing risk in a way circumcision does not, which is why the child protection response looks the way it does.
FGM targets the primary organ of sexual function, is associated with high rates of lifelong physical, sexual and obstetric harm, often involves repeat procedures and coercive control.
Circumcision, however wrong many of us think it is, does not present the same clinical or safeguarding profile.

'We have laws against FGM and know that some parents will take their chidlren abroad or otherwise circumvent this, but, quite rightly, we do not repeal that law and say, "OK, you are finding ways round it .... let's just make it legal.'

• No, we don't, for the reasons I stated above. But there have not been many prosecutions. As I said , enforcement relies much more heavily on prevention, education, travel orders and safeguarding plans.

Otoh, France has managed many more FGM prosecutions. Partly because all children receive medical examinations including genitals. It does help prevent the procedure, I'm still not sure if we should introduce that here.. They also have an inquisitorial legal system which makes gathering the evidence easier.

The basic principle is this: mutilating babies is wrong. Any civilised society must place this outside the law.

"FGM already meets the statutory threshold for serious harm and ongoing risk in a way circumcision does not, which is why the child protection response looks the way it does"

The foreskin is the male equivalent of the clitoral hood, removal of which constitutes a form of FGM and is illegal.

So is it really more directly harmful or is it that men and boys deserve less protection from harm under the law?

This is not correct: removing the foreskin does not have the same effects as removing the clitoral hood

The clitoris (including its hood) is the primary organ of female sexual pleasure.
The penis does not have a single equivalent structure. Sexual function and orgasm are distributed across the glans, shaft, pelvic nerves, prostate, etc.Removing the clitoris or damaging it directly affects orgasmic capacity in a way that circumcision generally does not.

Large populations of circumcised men (US, Israel, Muslim-majority countries) still report normal sexual function, orgasm, fertility, and desire. By contrast, FGM — even Type I (removal of clitoral hood)— is associated at population level with higher rates of pain, sexual dysfunction, trauma, childbirth complications and infection.

That doesn’t mean no circumcised men experience harm, but the overall functional impact is not comparable.

This is not correct: removing the foreskin does not have the same effects as removing the clitoral hood

Biologically they are the equivalent: y chromosome cause the clitoral hood to develop into a foreskin.

I did not say anything about removing the clitoris, only the hood.

Removing the foreskin removes the many never endings in it and ultimately this reduces the sensitivity of the glans underneath. Similarly removing the clitoral hood would remove nerve endings and reduce the sensitive of the clitoris.

How are men circumcised are children expected to know what normal sexual function and sensation feel like?

"How are men circumcised as children expected to know what normal sexual function and sensation feel like?"

They can't know and don't know. They have been deprived of this by their parents.