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

I agree with the majority.
I am wholeheartedly against "routine" circumcision of newborn boys and in fact there are relatively few absolute medical indications for the procedure. Many "medically indicated" circumcisions of the past would now be considered unnecessary.
But no, I wouldn't consider it the direct equivalent of FGM either in intended purpose nor effects.

We shouldn’t compare them in my opinion because the last thing we want is anyone, even if it’s just a tiny amount of people, seeing FGM as female circumcision and therefore prolonging this horrendous practice. My MIL had it done and my husband is from one of the countries where it’s most prevalent. He would want a son to be circumcised for cultural reasons but it’s not happening and he said he supports that. Btw, I don’t agree with male circumcision unless it’s for medical reasons and a boy is in pain etc. For god’s sake, it’s bad enough taking a baby for a vaccine! I don’t care if anyone says it’s numbed or whatever- it’s just my opinion. I respect others choosing to have it done for religious reasons obviously but it’s not something I’ll agree to as someone who isn’t religious. Even if I was, I’d find this very difficult to agree to.

It's not comparable at all.

Do you know FGM actually entails ?!

Fgm has no health benefit and is indeed - mutilation.

male circumcision is scientifically proven to have many health benefits

One is done by qualified medics in a hospital setting with pain relief... the other by medically unqualified members of a community using tin can edges, unsterilised knifes, rocks or jagged bits of glass. Ofc they're not the fucking same

You are minimising though one is horrific and one can in certain specific circumstances be medically necessary.

it’s the same as comparing circumcision with ear piercing

Chopping bits off children unnecessarily is child abuse, regardless of their sex and whatever spurious, religious reasons a person has used to validate their choice.

Is FGM ‘worse’ than circumcision? Yes. Are they both mutilation? Also yes.

I honestly think circumcision for no medical reason is only legal here because of people like the ones on this thread who shout “but FGM!” Every time.

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”

I agree with this completely and can only assume the OP is trying to rile people up. No one can actually think the completely, insanely barbaric practice of FGM compares to circumcision.

YABU. My baby had to be circumcised for medical reasons when he was a few months old. I wish he didn't have to be but it was by far the best decision medically for him and it was just a few days of aftercare and you would never know it had been done.

As someone who had it done as an adult for medical reasons, I can tell you there's definitely a fuck ton of nerves in it. It hurt like a mother fucker for days afterwards, and sex just isn't the same without it. Why the fuck anyone would subject a child to it without being medically necessary I do not know.

Still in no way comparable to FGM though.

It may well be at the less severe end of the scale, but no form of genital mutilation is acceptable.

Removing the penis would be the equivalent to removing the clitoris. So, no, not the same.

It has no medical benefits for a baby though, let’s not twist reality.

I work in a nursery. Where I work it is about 40% circumsised. Asian, African, Jewish. They show no signs of being in pain.

I would compare it to ear piercing, which is also non consensual in babies and toddlers.

FGM is horrific, gratuitous, violent and inexcusable, under any and all circumstances. It destroys lives.

Circumcision for medical reasons by a surgeon, with pain relief, is not relevant to this discussion, as the OP made clear at the beginning of this thread. If it needs doing then it is the same as any other necessary surgical procedure.

The routine circumcision of baby boys at a few days old, strapped to a "circ board" with no pain relief, carried out by obstetricians with varying degrees of skill (or lack of) for a bit of cash was , to me, as a UK trained midwife, pretty distressing. This was in a private hospital in USA. I found it appalling tbh.

3 totally different things that should not be conflated IMO.

Circumcision is absolutely NOTHING like FGM whatsoever. I am embarrassed for anyone who thinks it is. FGM equivalent on a boy would be chopping off the end of his penis. Unbelievable that some people think circumcision on boys is the same as FGM on girls. I despair for humanity!

A poster up thread has said that his was circumcised as an adult and doesn’t enjoy sex as much. It’s the same surely? I could have sex without my clitoris but it’d be no where near as nice as it can be with one.

As much? I wouldn't be able to reach climax without mine, and that's a fact for the majority of females. I don't think that's the case for males. Affects sensation, yes, but I don't think it's the same.

I would not say snip away but it is not equivalent so I haven't voted

YANBU . In a very small number of cases it is medically necessary. I had a FB discussion with an American lady about this. First she made some bonkers argument that uncircumcised boys and men would be at risk of Aids / penile cancer etc. Other posters disproved this nonsense with a battery of statistics.

To which she replied ' I don't care , I think an uncut penis looks gross. If I don't circumcise my son he'll never get a girlfriend. ' So there we have it.

One is a genuine actual medical procedure. The ethical issue in question is whether it is acceptable to carry out surgery that is not medically indicated on babies who can't consent.

The other is barbaric mutilation. The male equivalent would be chopping off the whole penis. Your comparison is ludicrous.

So no, they are not the same thing at all even if you think circumcision is wrong, it is not the same as FGM.

Side effects, short and long term risks and death rates for the two are also worlds apart - because one is an actual medical procedure with risks but ones that are small enough to be clearly acceptable when it is done for medical reasons. The other is butchery.

Intention also matters. FGM is done with the intention of controlling women. Circumcision is done with the intention of a) some ideas about hygiene which arent relevant b) an identifier as part of a community

Can you really not see the difference?

Ps A baby bled to death here a few years ago after a botched 'snip' . Never good idea to go cutting for no reason.

Wholeheartedly agree with you OP. Some people don’t know that in a certain faith once they’ve performed the circumcision the person who has just done that, SUCKS the blood from the wound… of a poor defenceless baby! It is abhorrent. It’s not at all the same as doing it for a legitimate medical reason. It is abusive, painful and with the blood sucking thrown in, I’m not sure how anyone can say it’s too different from FGM

It’s not the same as FGM. My youngest was circumcised as a toddler due to a very tight foreskin along with a kidney issue which caused repeated kidney infections. His consultant recommended the procedure from a clinical viewpoint to try and help reduce the risk of repeated infections. My eldest didn’t need it done. I personally don’t agree with it for reasons other than a clinical indication but that’s my personal view.
FGM is carried out illegally, often under poor conditions and doesn’t carry a medical benefit

The reasons are different - for women and girls it's to control sexuality. Both are wrong but both are not the same.