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 am married to a Muslim and DS was to be circumcised by a Jewish doctor, until I got hysterical about it at the very last minute. Thank fuck I did, because I now wonder what I was thinking to entertain the idea of circumcision.

That said, it’s in a different league to FGM by some margin. It’s surely more equivalent to removing the entire glans?

The difference is that fgm is never needed for health reasons it's done as previous posters have said to appease men.

At no benefit at all to women. It actually makes things worse for us. If you don't die from it first because it's not like it's carried out in a sterile safe hospital with a clear aftercare plan or antibiotics.

Then deal with the ptsd of actually remembering it all and dealing with everything that goes with that. every day. Mentally and physically.

Circumcision can be a solution to a medical issue.

I recommend that you read Cut: One Woman's Fight Against FGM in Britain Today
Book by Hibo Wardere.

No you are very wrong to make that comparison.
There are sometimes medical reasons for having a foreskin removed. There are never any reasons for removing the clitoris, labia and sewing up a woman or girl.

You are also preaching to the converted. Mumsnet is a UK site and the vast vast majority of people do not believe in circumcisions for boys unless medically necessary. It is the us this is a cultural problem so you need to tackle it there. Comparing it to fgm will not help your cause as people can obviously see there's a difference.

No I believe it's cruel and barbaric to do for religious or cultural reasons. But no it's not equivalent to even level 1 fgm. (You can read about this in the book)

Ha! Well, 99% of things on Mumsnet are none of our concern.....yet here we are.

I agree you are mutilating your child's body. See also ear piercing.
It's not as damaging as FGM, but it still should be illegal.

One of those threads where everyone says no you're misguided and the op says no I am not until it gets deleted.

Agree with pp. If I had a son, I wouldn’t have had him circumcised. I don’t agree with it unless it’s for medical reasons, but to compare to FGM is just wrong.

There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to a girl/woman going through FGM, no medical reason for the procedure, no good reason at all

It's all mutilation when carried out for non medical reasons, but I suppose it's the difference between cutting off a little finger and cutting off a whole hand.

One has minimal impact on life, the other is long term disabling.

You are being totally unreasonable to conflate the barbarism of FGM to circumcision. FGM is painful, damaging mutilation which leaves lifelong trauma.

Male circumcision wont leave lasting trauma but is still (unless medically necessary) gratuitous and abhorrent. Instead of lopping off bits of their child’s genitalia, these male dominated cultures could just teach their male offspring to wash their cocks properly. Problem solved.

You can disagree with circumcision without equating it to fgm.

You need to educate yourself about fgm.

Seriously? No equivalence whatsoever.

I disagree with both, but FGM of any form is horrific, traumatic and MEANT to emotionally and physically cripple women.
They are absolutely not the same. Nowhere near.

I personally think it’s wrong unless it’s medically necessary. That said circumcised men can still go on to have a relatively normal fulfilling sex life. I appreciate it can cause calcification and a loss of sensation.

FGM is brutal though, it’s not the same.

What's wrong with ear piercing now? Is that now mutilation the same league as circumcision, would you say?

What's wrong with sticking holes in a child to decorate it?

Is that a serious question?

I don't believe this. My best friend needed a medical circumcision and it was done under a local anaesthetic. It took less than 10 minutes.

I don't think they'd give babies a general anaesthetic for this. And how can it not work the first time?

What's wrong with sticking holes in a child to decorate it?

If you can't even provide a serious answer, then I don't know what to say to you. You think this is mitigation yes - so please explain.

I had my ears pierced as a baby and it has precisely zero impact on my life. Was it necessary? No, of course not, it's cosmetic. I'm also fairly happy to have had it done.

What harm does it cause? How is it even in the same realm as male circumcision let alone FGM?

There's evidence of males slicing open their wives so they can have sex after FGM. No comparison whatsoever. FGM is fucking barbaric on an entirely different scale

It's totally unacceptable. But it shows you have a huge ignorance of fgm of you think circumcision is the same.

Read these stories OP and tell me whether you really believe the 2 things are equal.

Trigger warning, graphic accounts from women who are victims of FGM

x.com/thegirdlengr/status/1721899859329028558?s=61&t=_4AjlXbi-cbNgW2ZGAXrpQ

x.com/thegirdlengr/status/1721439109414080564?s=61&t=_4AjlXbi-cbNgW2ZGAXrpQ

There are a lot of circumcised mental feel itcery much is equivalent to FGM and I would not want to dismiss their feelings.
It's certainly entirely unnecessary and if we don't dock dogs tails or crop ears anymore we shouldn't be circumcising babies either.

But personally I don't think the risks or long term effects are anywhere near as bad as FGM.
Certainly it can go wrong for boys, but most men who have had it done successfully have no real problems. If they did men would have stopped this practice years ago.

FGM on the otherhand is often only considered successful if therd is significant loss of sensation and restricted opening.
And yet despite so many awful outcomes it continues because... patriarchy/misogyny .

So it's similar but not to same degree

Can't we just call them both awful without comparing? I see no benefit to suffers of either experiences from any comparison.

I'd like to think that anyone who experiences either has some additional empathy & compassion for those who experience the other as a result. I was mutilated as a baby boy, I wouldn't even want to have that conversation with someone who suffered FGM. The biggest problem raising it as an issue is, nothing to do with women, it's the predominantly male religious hierarchy

FWIW…I heard that the royal family traditionally always had their boys circumcised. Not sure if current generation is still doing this. Carried out by the Royal Moyle

You asked what is wrong with piercing a child's ears.

What's wrong is that putting holes in children to decorate them is abhorrent and something that should be left to them to do as adults if they so wish.

It is in nowhere near the same realm as male circumcision or FGM.

Not the same thing atall but my baby had a general anaesthetic at 8 mo to correct a tongue tie that had been snipped at 2 weeks old and had healed badly with thick, fleshy scar tissue .

I can imagine if it heals badly it’s better to redo under general. Older children are really wiggly and uncooperative.