Circumcision should be banned.

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2025/01/judge-and-parents-call-for-boys-to-be-protected-from-circumcision

Article describes an upsetting case of two doctors performing these ops without anesthesia, and with sometimes serious side effects. One boy nearly died.

The National Secular Society is running a concurrent campaign to ban all 'religious cutting' - that includes both FGM and male circumcision. I wholeheartedly agree that no baby or child should suffer in this way. More info:

https://www.secularism.org.uk/religious-surgery/

YABU - circumcision for religous reasons is fine
YANBU - circumcision should be banned (unless there is a medical reason)

It does need to be spoken about. It's horrific.

Yes, it's a bit like many Vedic superstitions were sensible in ancient India. But now India is modernising the superstitions are mainly not so relevant or even harmful sometimes.

More whataboutery.

The op is about banning male circumcision, which I disagree with. Female circumcision SHOULD be banned, as there is no benefit.

I’ve not said anywhere non medical qualified people should be allowed to carry out such a procedure.

in the city I live in (uk) the local nhs hospital does it (!)

But what you failed to grasp is if it isn't done as a newborn in Africa/India etc then the child is at risk and needs it done, which means a loss of life. Your condom comment shows how little you understand about some cultures.

The babies don't have nappies put on them and in the case of a newborn son, the family will pay for what is needed, if an infection occurs, which doesn't happen often. However the infection at six years old, because of a lack of clean water and the heat/dirty soil etc is more of a problem and one that the family might not want or be able to afford to treat. Uncircumcised boys in some countries are at a high risk of infection, not grown men.

How sad foe your brothers.

I totally agree. It's nothing to do with beliefs. For me, it's about altering a body that does not belong to you.

Mt parents were Christians. They didn't christen us. They gave us the choice at around 12. If it was what we wanted great. They would organise it.
If we didn't they were also totally fine with it.

It's to do with choice. I find it so sad I really do.

I’m English and my partner is not. He is Muslim and comes from a country where circumcision is the norm. We did circumcise our son when he was around 1 week old for my partner’s religious reasons but obviously I agreed. We did it in a private hospital with a specialist doctor and I believed they used local anaesthesia. To be honest, despite it not being the norm in my (English) culture, I agreed to do it as I don’t believe it is a bad practise. It is more hygienic and when done at such a young age the recovery time is minimal and I didn’t see my son in any pain after the procedure even when changing nappies etc. I felt that it was better to do it at his young age rather than him wait until he’s older and decide to do it as I presume the recovery might be more noticeable? My partner was actually circumcised at around 6 years old I believe and he does have bad memories of it. I also know a woman who had her son circumcised by a rabbi in her home. These I disagree with due to the trauma to an older child and due to the lack of hygiene/anaesthesia in religious ceremony type circumcisions.

I find the comparisons with FGM quite offensive tbh as FGM is carried out to stop girls/women from having sex / feeling pleasure and is a form of control and oppression. There are 0 benefits to FGM and many terrible effects, mentally and physically. Circumcisions do have hygiene benefits and there are very rarely any negative effects. It is carried out generally by parents who mean well and believe they are doing the right thing for their child, it is incomparable with FGM.

I’m not looking to argue my point as I see people have strong aversions to circumcision but I wanted to provide insight to why people do circumcise. I did so believing it was the correct thing for my son

It would be excellent if those who object to this sort of discussion could give us examples of permissable wording so that we can avoid this sort of tedious derailing.

Would simply saying 'genital mutilation of children' be sufficient? Or anytime circumcision is discussed is there a phrase you'd like us to insert, for example "obviously FGM is much worse" which will make it acceptable to mention foreskin removal without consent of the patient?

I know (hopefully) that you just intend to advocate for women and girls, and quite rightly so, but when no-one is saying that FGM is anything but Utterly Abhorent, it does come across as whataboutery.

As do the tired claims of the benefits to adults of surgery carried out in early infancy when there are no benefits to the child.

I have no issue with adult males electing to have their foreskin removed to please god, reduce HIV or cervical cancer risk, or because they like how it looks.

Note: because FGM is much worse, it is always illegal to conduct it in the UK, including into adulthood, and quite rightly so.

Also want to add that my obstetrician advised doing the procedure at that age and also agreed with us that it is better to circumcise. She is not Muslim/Jewish or from a culture that routinely circumcises

So, some people put religion above their baby? Is that what you mean? Baffling.

I don't think it needs to be a contest, both need to be campaigned against. Globally, FGM is more likely by far to cause severe pain, danger, loss of pleasure. But this doesn't mean male circumcision can't be severe. As I posted upthread, we need to put women's issues first, as feminism is primarily about women's issues, but help men's issues where possible, esp ones like this, mutilation of infants. As I posted, circumcision is instigated by many mothers & affects the porn industry, anal, which are feminist issues. As a principle, people need to listen to each other reciprocally, although women need to focus on their own issues foremost, & more men should fight against circumcision.
I think it IS key to be clear that FGM is overall worse, bc that is the factual truth. It shoyodn't be a choice, but if one had to be prioritised, it should be FGM.
@shuggles According to Human Rights Watch, this is due to it being 'considerably more invasive' and carrying no medical benfit, which circumcision does seem to, at least in some cases. Overall, types 1 & 2, both involving at least partial removal of the clitoris, are the most common, although I don't know how much is generally removed. I imagine it is normally severe, after all it's meant to curb sexual pleasure. Male circumcision is not meant to totally curb that, although it definitely targets it.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/16/qa-female-genital-mutilation

There isn’t anything inherently wrong with believing that some cultures are superior to others, or that some cultural beliefs are simply damaging and should be banned. All beliefs are not equally worthy of tolerance or respect.

So you are basically saying the majority of Muslims, Jews and Americans are child abusers?

You are misconstruing my comment. I’m not saying it’s the same, clearly it’s different. I’m saying that the same moral argument applies. FWIW I would also apply the same moral argument to piercing a babies ears. It’s NOT the same but they all fail the same moral test.

I’ve been lurking and following the discussion.

In my view:

1. I don’t think anyone here is trying to minimise FGM or how horrendous it is. It does feel like some posters are trying to minimise circumcision though, and I think when people are comparing to ‘pricking’ or pointing out that there can be lifelong consequences to circumcision, they are doing so to highlight how circumcision isn’t benign - I.e both things are bad. It’s not a competition. More than one thing can be bad and we should stop both.
2. I realise this is going to seem like a personal attack or criticism towards the PP who has defended having her son circumcised but I have to say I find the ‘it didn’t seem bad’ thing really disturbing. From her post it doesn’t sound as though she had any reasons actively to do it, although the father had a religious motivation. The apathy towards letting your son go through an unnecessary procedure is disturbing to me - but I think it may well be how a lot of circumcision end up happening. One parent or set of grandparents say ‘that’s what we’ve always done’ and the other either agrees or just shrugs and says ‘well it can’t be that bad’. When we’re talking about surgery on infants, I find that scary.
3. Some PPs are saying that because the motivation could be to make boys ‘clean’ it is less bad than FGM where the purpose is to limit sexual function. But I don’t accept that at all. Plenty of people who engage in spurious religious or cultural practices will have means to justify those. I’m sure plenty of proponents of FGM will say they have to to ensure the girl is marriageable and not treated like a social outcast, with all the very serious consequences that might have for her life. The intentions of the people doing it might be ‘good’ (in their eyes) but that doesn’t change the fact the act is an assault on the body of a child, and should be illegal in all its forms.

We can agree that.

What we can't agree is the forced teaming. It means that by trying to make one thing as important as the other, you end up making the more serious thing as important as the least.

Making circumcision part of FGM, some men will say, "oh I'm circumcised and it wasn't that bad/helped me/is cleaner/I like it". And apply that same logic to FGM, knowing nothing about it.

FGM is mutilation, designed to reduce or eradicate female sexual pleasure. And force virginity until marriage. And make sex painful. That's what it DESIGNED to do. Not a sad, unintended consequence. The male equivalent would be castration.

It's also inflicted on the most vulnerable, powerless, poorest women in the world. The same is not true for male circumcision and the two should not be lumped together to gain support for stopping male circumcision at the expense of the understanding of female.

I agree with stopping both, but FGM is incredibly serious and should be treated as such, as its own stand-alone issue.

@Cunningfungus I disagree with you. Severe forms of FGM are common in many African and Asian countries.

You will need data to show me that Type 3 is the most common form.

Male circumcision has positive outcomes - the WHO recommend it to reduce the transmission of HIV - again - there are NO positives to female circumcision no matter how “minor” it is.

You need to do more homework. First of all, the WHO does not recommend routine circumcision in infants. It recommends "voluntary medical male circumcision." The word "voluntary" means the subject has agreed to it.

https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/hiv/prevention/voluntary-medical-male-circumcision

Second, almost all studies regarding HIV and male circumcision have been completed in Africa. There is no evidence that the same intervention has the same benefit in western countries such as the UK.

Third, circumcision of an infant to reduce HIV transmission is making some very big assumptions about the child's future sexual behaviours. You would look very silly if you circumcised an infant boy and he grew up to have little or no sexual activity (note that about a third of young men in their 20s have not had sex within the past year).

It really makes me so sad the way so many women are prepared to stand up for males for spurious reasons and whataboutery whilst women and girls the world over are fucked over minute by minute.

This last part is a bit strange. I'm pretty sure all of us are universally opposed to cutting girls too.

You're the one trying to make arbitrary distinctions, which is just creating a distraction. This is why both circumcision and FGM are able to continue.

No - we don’t need to help men’s issues. Let them do that for themselves.

That is the natural conclusion for anyone who thinks that doing physical harm to a minor (with no proven medical benefit) is abuse.

do you not think that is true?

Key words being 'adult' and 'voluntary'.

I'm completely opposed to the circumcision of infants and children, except for medical reasons.

The 'it's cleaner' argument doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all because:

a) Most adult men who are not circumcised are perfectly able to keep themselves clean. When our DS got to the age where he started bathing/showering by himself, my DH explained to him (without any need for physical demonstration!) how to keep his penis clean; similar to how I told our DD to wipe from front to back and how to keep her genitals clean.

b) Even if it were true (which I don't believe), it wouldn't be sufficient justification for mutilating the child. If FGM was shown to help women stay cleaner and reduce the spread of STIs, would those posters support it?

YANBU
Absolutely should be banned

I get why it's frustrating for you, I think we reflexively worry people like incels will misuse circumcision discourse to claim that women haven't been disadvantaged in comparison to men.

I do think any comparison to FGM should stress that both have barbaric aspects, overall FGM is worse, esp infibulation, &the total clitoridectomy that occur in type 1 & 2. They're more akin to castration. I can see that FGM comparisons could benefit men in that it points out the barbarism in circumcision that are too often overlooked, but overall I think it's best if the awful aspects of circumcision are spelled out independently. It's a bit like when misogyny is compared to racism, anti-black racism to anti Semitism, it can make important points, bit overall I think it touches too many nerves to be really useful in public discourse.
Obvs in all male support groups the language used is up to those men, that's a private matter. I'm talking about public campaigning & outreach.

Im not sure who ‘we’ is, but I’m interested in men’s and women’s issues actually so speak for yourself.,

There’s threads are just an echo chamber without much understanding. My son was circumcised using a plastibel (I think it’s called) by a paediatric surgeon, the small amount of skin literally dropped off (wasn’t cut) he suffered absolutely no trauma and didn’t even cry and is the most loved happy and well adjusted child you could hope for. I am not a child abuser and I love my son more than anything in the world.