To think that circumcising baby/young boys is the equivalent to FGM?

[Cress42]

I’m part of a baby group - our babies are all younger than 12 months and there are parents looking to get their sons REcircumcised 😢

They’re all based in America. I understand it’s a cultural norm there and nobody is talking about any medical issues to warrant having them circumcised.

It’s a fact that it causes desensitisation and part of me feels that along with the general pain of the operation this is similar to FGM.

The baby can’t consent to the mutilation. Also mutilation isn’t too severe a word, it literally means: act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.

YABU - It’s not similar to FGM. There’s nothing wrong with it, snip away!

YANBU - It’s similar / the male equivalent to FGM and unless carried out for medical reasons it should be up to the discretion of the person who is being circumcised

FGM is carried out to control and suppress girls and women.

Circumcision for supposed hygiene or religious/ cultural beliefs is unacceptable but does not cause the same extent of physical trauma as FGM.

I don’t think it compares to the brutality of FGM, but that still doesn’t mean there is any excuse for altering a child’s genitals without compelling medical need.

bodily autonomy and consent supersede any claims to culture or tradition.

Same. I’m not about to judge other people’s religious customs either.

I agree with you bit I still think it is mutilation if it is done for no medical reason.

I feel the same with amputees. If they're attacked with a machete-mutilation, if it's done by a surgeon for sound medical reasons-not mutilation. If a woman has her vulva removed due to cancer-not mutilation, if she has them removed with a rusty knife to make her 'clean'-mutilation.

Yes you're BU. FGM is much more serious than male circumcision. I agree that circumcision seems totally baffling though. I think you'll just have to stay out of any conversations with Americans about it.

Because removal of foreskin, while awful for non medical reasons would be the equivalent of the removal of the clitoral hood. And that's not what FGM is. FGM is the removal of the outer clitoris, labia and a stitching of the vaginal entrance to make the hole smaller. It's like comparing losing a finger to losing an arm.

Of course it's not the same as FGM! FGM has lifelong effects re pain, loss of sexual pleasure, loss of function, increased risk off infections, psychological problems, problems during pregnancy and birth, and infertility.

Circumcising does not. 🙄

it is NOT comparable to FGM.
If you think it is you need to educate yourself.

What a time to be Jewish on Mumsnet!

My G-d.

It’s not the equivalent but imo neither should be done.

Mutilating a baby’s genitals is horrific. Just because it’s less horrific than FGM, doesn’t make it therefore no longer horrific.

It took a little while tbh, as unfortunately it got infected and he had to get a cream to go on it.
Once that was sorted, it healed really quickly.
Probably not the answer you wanted, sorry!

Just keep an eye, and try and let it ‘breathe’ as much as possible.

Both involve mutilating the genitals of a tiny baby who has no control over what is happening. Both are wrong. The fact that in a male it can have a medical application for boys with a penile problem, does not make it any less wrong in a normal healthy male baby.

Not all types of FGM are that severe, FGM encompasses all cutting, burning, scraping, piercing of the genitals as well as the types you have mentioned...

Female genital mutilation (FGM) - NHS (www.nhs.uk)

I know what you mean, as I said if there was no medical need, it wouldn’t have happened, but as I said ‘mutilated’ just feels far too strong a word.

I feel like the male equivalent of FGM would be akin to castration. That also feels more in line with the amputation analogy.

Nothing like what happened to DS, I feel like it’s too much for what’s essentially removing a flap of skin. Imo, the two are just not comparable.

Because you are comparing circumcision to the most severe types of FGM. FGM is not always the removal of the whole genitalia, sometimes it is just removal of a little skin.

Can’t be arsed to clean it or teach your son to clean himself when he is old enough is not a ‘medical reason’ 🙄

I think no baby should be circumcised but it really pisses me off to see you comparing it to FGM. Absolutely classic to see female suffering minimised like this “oh men suffer too” 🤬 For some men foreskin removal can be medically necessary, and even when it isn’t necessary it is usually a simple procedure with no negative side effects. The purpose of it is to help the boy/man. FGM however is never medically necessary, and has nasty side effects such as incontinence, infection and childbirth problems. The sole purpose of it is to ensure that the girls/woman never enjoy sex it even find it painful. It is sadistic.

(DS’s lazy hygiene has given him an infected foreskin several times and when treating it I’ve had a lot of sympathy for people who just circumcise the damn thing early on! In historical cultures, with no antibiotics, I can see why it would become standard, particularly in desert peoples where getting clean washing water is problem).

There’s a nasty whiff of anti-semitism about this thread too which seems very tasteless given what’s going on in the world.

Who the fuck thinks that this is a reasonable comparison for the OP to make? Do you have any idea what FGM means, as opposed to circumcision?

I thought circumcision in the USA is the norm, regardless of religion.

This.

It's not remotely comparable to FGM and anyone who thinks it is needs to do some reading.

I refused my son although his father was Jewish and his parents asked.

it’s done by the rabbi in the first 7 days without anaesthesia and yes it is mgm - it’s unnecessary and abusive in my opinion and I made this clear to my In-laws. It may be not as invasive as FGM but it is unnecessary on a newborn baby and it does come with risk and it does come with pain so I don’t agree with it either

But removal of ‘a little bit of skin’ on a female has consequences that the male equivalent just doesn’t. On a boy, it’s just a bit of skin, no nerves etc attached.
It’s just not the same

The circumcision of baby boys is shameful. But it in no way compares with FGM.

Who ever told you that? Foreskins contain between 10,000 and 20,000 nerve endings, I've heard it's the most sensitive part of the penis. The term FGM encompasses ALL cutting, piercing, burning, pricking of the genitals as well as more severe types of FGM that involves removal of some or all of the external genitals.