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

Thank you for sharing.

I’m assuming you mean the most extreme version of FGM? Which is what most people have jumped to…

This isn’t true - it’s not done with pain relief in lots of incidences

Some babies are born with very tight foreskin which can cause pain and infection. We know a baby where this was the case.

Btw, I am totally against it unless a paediatrician told me it was medically absolutely necessary to prevent pain or a complication.

100% this! It boggles my mind that some people are implying they are the same (including the OP.) It's clear they have not educated themselves on FGM at ALL.

There's also the fact that the way the clitoris is removed is BARBARIC. Some girls die from septicemia, and even those that don't die, live with long term unpleasant and sometimes painful after affects.

FGM is utterly horrific. It's not just the fact you can't climax without your clitoris as a previous poster said!!!! FGM is barbaric, and is utter butchery. It is illegal in the UK, and you can be imprisoned for up to 14 years for committing this crime against girls. Should be longer!

@Cress42 You clearly know nothing whatsoever about FGM. Please stop!

This is my child, on top of a urethral web, kidney reflux, kidney valve issues, urethral stricture, spent most of his 5 months catheterisation and iv antibiotics, wish someone had told the surgeons today the circumcision wasn't necessary as it looks so painful.

Well, I mean all skin is attached to nerves (except maybe the end of the elbow?!?)

My point was a foreskin is just not the equivalent of removal of parts of the labia/clitoris. Not that there’s no risk/it makes no difference iyswim.

OPs question isn’t ‘do you agree with non medical circumcision’ (which I think we’re probably in agreement) it’s ‘is it the equivalent to FGM’.

And imo, no. It’s nowhere near.

So let me get this straight - you think male circumcision is directly comparable to FGM… but if and only if we’re not including the ‘more extreme’ FGM?

I think you need to rethink the equivalence you’re making

Op, I think it’s dangerous to start taking about extreme cases. In countries where it happens, and indeed in countries where it doesn’t, it’s far too difficult and subjective to draw a line and determine what is extreme and what is not - whatever that means. I think it’s all extreme. I don’t think we should take anything but a “black or white” view.

A woman’s genitals should not be cut full stop, it goes without saying.

To anyone claiming that circumcision is ‘just removing a piece of skin’ I would suggest that it is YOU that is minimising circumcision.

How can anyone read a first hand account like this and say that it’s not on par?

Typical mumsnet to go the most extreme version of FGM in an argument to say it’s not genital mutilation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-47292307.amp

do you actually understand what is involved in FGM? your post suggests not and is unbelievably ignorant.

Educate yourself - there are many more cultures and religions than just Judaism that do this as the norm

I voted YABU, not because I think "snip away" - I absolutely don't and think it should be dome for medical reasons only.

But it's not remotely comparable to genital mutilation.

Not comparable in the slightest. I don't agree with circumcision for religious reasons but it does not cause the same harm as FGM.

I never said that 'it's just the fact you can't climax without your clitoris'. If that was aimed at me! That was my example as to why it is not the same for the male poster who doesn't enjoy sex as much. It's not nearly the same!!

Exactly this.
a source online stated that "FGM is a leading cause of death in the countries where it is practiced. Our estimate that 44, 320 girls and young women die each year due to FGM is suggestive that FGM belongs in the first rank of causes of death in Africa."

this is precisely is why it is criminalised.

Shame on you for suggesting this is anti-Semitic

There’s a big whiff of ignorance from your post.

You are aware that circumcision is adopted by followers of both Islam and Judaism - so especially in the current climate please explain how this is anti-Semitic?

Its not the same as FGM and its sad that activists try to link the two. Its also ridiculous for you organise the voting the way you did. Can't you just campaign against male circumcision without insulting women?

Can't vote as I dont agree with either stance.

Male circumcision is barbaric and removes male choice, if a guy wants to reduce the risk of STIs etc or medical intervention for other reasons that's one thing but it shouldn't be done to babies.

But to make it the equivalent of FGM is utterly ridiculous. It's on another level.

The problem with circumcision to me is that you can still opt to have your child's genitals mutilated in a first world country. FGM is more horrific but happens in countries known for some quite horrific things, circumcision apart from for penis issues is very backwards and sick imo

how about articles like this from the WHO
9789241596169_eng.pdf (who.int)

You're going on about extremism yet post articles like this saying people will kill themselves because they've been circumcised?!!
I need to leave this thread as have been panicking enough about all the Surgery my baby needs and has had to have today and now you're saying we're pushing him to suicide as an adult??

NC for this for obvious reasons.

I was circumcised as a baby. It sucks, and I wish that I had not been circumcised. It has definitely reduced sensitivity significantly, to the point that I cannot orgasm while wearing a condom.

Despite this, male circumcision is absolutely not in the same league as FGM. FGM is a much more serious social problem.

I can still have an erection and an orgasm. I have no issues with urination and, the circumcision does not result in pain for me during sex. On the other hand, FGM even in its mildest form is intended to prevent female orgasm by removing the clitoris. The closest analogy to that for a man would be complete removal of the head of the penis. The more invasive forms of FGM, which involve even more cutting away of healthy tissue and also sometimes sewing up of areas that are not meant to be sewn up, can cause pain and tearing for a woman during sex, and in some cases increase the risks of tearing, blood loss, in some cases permanent fecal incontinence after childbirth, etc. The side effects are simply horrific.

The difference between male circumcision and FGM is so substantial that they should not be treated as similar in nature but different in extent - instead, they are different in nature.

Also, the purposes are different. FGM is designed to reduce female sexual pleasure, with the intent of preventing women from choosing to have sex with men to whom they are not married. Male circumcision is not designed to have that effect at all.

With different purposes and also levels of harm being so fundamentally different, any conflation of male circumcision with FGM is harmful because it dilutes efforts to stop FGM from happening.

This. FGM is utterly barbaric. Girls are sometimes “sown up” after, unable to urinate. They may end up with a fistula. A man can rip the sutures open with his penis to have sex and then the girl sown up again. It is utterly heartbreaking what these girls and young women go through and the permanent pain and disfigurement they are left in. Removal of all/part of the foreskin is not nearly as traumatic and is unlikely to cause death or lifelong pain and disfigurement. So YAVVVU to compare the two.

It is so wrong to co-opt FGM.

I do not believe in male circumcision and would never do it. But no, male circumcision is not comparable to FGM. if it was, we wouldn't have so many circumcised males who choose to promote it fgs.

FGM is something that is done in specific cultures in Africa. You are pushing them aside to further your narrative by centring FGM with circumcision. You have no right to use other people's plight as a pawn.