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)

As I said, I disagree with both.

I'm not going to go into the various types of FGM on here because they are horrifying and triggering to many. But if you'd like to Google the levels of FGM you can. The most severe totally disable the women concerned, making sex painful and unpleasant forever. Below (and you've been warned) why it's different.

Can involve total removal of the external genitals, including the clitoris, and narrowing the vaginal opening (by making a flap and sewing shut), removing pleasure, and introducing dreadful pain.

99% of men in the USA are circumcised

Possibly, but I think there are some things we can be sure of. Does disagreeing with the death penalty for adulterers make me a supremacist for example?

If you think it's cruel, and that cruelty is being inflicted on a child, then surely that goes beyond a moral belief? There is no religious or cultural belief that should ever trump actual bodily harm or cruelty to a child. I don't think it's supremacist to hold that position.

male circumcision doesn't cause any issues going forward once healed.

There are several anti circumcision groups that disagree with you

Yes it should be done on medical grounds only. I understand it’s a religious thing but we need to move with the times. We shouldn’t be modifying bodies without medical reasons or at least that person’s consent.

There are downsides. The foreskin contains between 20000 and 100000 nerve endings. The glans is meant to be protected too.

It's not a small procedure. Don't minimise it just because you agree with it, that's dishonest

It’s not a religious thing in USA

You are being extremely unreasonable to associate circumcision with FGM.

Do you have a source for that. The guardian reported that the rate of circumcision has fallen from 60% in 2000.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/21/foreskin-reclaimers-the-intactivists-fighting-infant-male-circumcision

Where did you get 99% from?

Overall I would be in favour of a total ban on any form of body modification/surgical procedure for children unless it’s been deemed medically necessary. I let my daughters get their ears pierced but it would have done them zero harm to have to wait till 16/18 & if a total ban made it easier to implement/police other forms of body modification/surgery it seems reasonable.

Hate this attitude. It’s so weaselly.

You can absolutely respect other cultures while retaining confidence in your own moral standards.

Refusing to take a stance on, say, FGM or circumcision or child marriage or whatever because “it’s cultural” is a kind of prejudice in itself IMO. You wouldn’t even consider accepting those things for a child of your own, so why should you drop your standards for a muslim or jewish child?

My son is circumcised for religious reasons (muslim). It was done when he was a baby.
The situation was extremely complex.

However, male circumcision and FGM are not the same and its not helpful to conflate the two issues.

You are incorrect - it can.

I don't agree with circumcision at all but I think in practice it would be pretty much impossible to enforce a ban.

Bearing in mind infant circumcision is standard practice in the Jewish community, almost the entire Arab world and most of the USA.

FGM is against international law and illegal in most of the world, including many of the countries where it is commonly practised. So if a medical professional encounters a girl or woman who has undergone FGM, it's pretty clear that a crime has been committed somewhere. Proving who/where/when is the difficulty, which is why convictions are so rare.

Also, women are far more likely to need to show their genitals to healthcare workers than men are, because we have babies. Whereas unless a man has a health issue affecting his penis, or requires catheterisation or some other form of intimate care, nobody other than his carers or sexual partners is likely to see his penis.

Stunned at that, although the figure seems to be somewhat lower according to this data:

71.2 in US
20.7 in the UK - also very surprised at that figure.

https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5/tables/1

The current % of men circumcised in the US is 80%.
Rates for babies is decling and is under 60% so the popularity is obviously slowing and the overall rates will be lower as the next generation grows up. Whether the father is or isnt circumcised is the number 1 factor in whether a son is.

Extremely unreasonable?

I can see the argument that the consequences for FGM can be very different than for male circumcision, although the article is discussing near-death for a boy, which is obviously as serious as it gets.

At root, I think the motivation is not dissimilar. Unnecessary surgical procedures for religiously motivated reasons.

No, it’s not exactly the same as FGM but is equally abhorrent in my eyes. Unless it was deemed medically necessary, how can any loving mother allow their precious baby to be mutilated for the sake of ‘religion’ when the child is unable to give consent.

I see your point, but for balance, what about dramatic medical benefits?

Source below.

Multiple studies of male circumcision for HIV prevention were stopped early because they showed a significant reduction in HIV infection rates. These studies were conducted in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa.
Explanation
Kisumu, Kenya
A study of 2,784 men found that circumcised men had a 53% lower risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised men.
Rakai, Uganda
A study of 4,996 men found that circumcised men had a 48% lower risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised men.
South Africa
A study known as the "Orange Farm Intervention Trial" found that circumcised men had a 60% lower risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised men.

It is declining, even in religious communities.

I'm from a community where it's normal and expected. Lot of pressure when DS was going to be and I stood my ground and said he's not going to be, fuck off.
Surprisingly my family respected the decision and even said 'no mother wants to do it to their son'. I was so relieved, i genuinely thought they would take my son and do it behind my back.
Speaking to other women from the community they also agree it's not nice and didn't need to be done. I'm glad now women have more rights and are able to stand up for stuff like this.
I always remember Stacey Solomon when she speaks about the guilt of getting her eldest son circumcised. So sad.

Condoms are far more effective that circumcision for reducing the spread of hiv/aids. They should be promoted ahead of medical procedures. They also have the benefit of helping protect women too.

If a bloke wants to be circumcised as an adult to help prevent the spread of hiv, then he can go ahead. Babies cannot consent

IF those figures are reliable, and IF there are health benefits, a grown adult man can make the decision to be circumcised, and meantime use a condom. It shouldn’t be forced on children.

I personally don’t see a problem with it for religious reasons… However I feel that even if for religious reasons it should be carried out by a medical doctor under anaesthetic. And I don’t think children should go under anaesthetic for such reasons, unless it’s medically required. So for that reason, I guess I’m against it.

It is true that circumcision is a significant protection against HIV, but Uganda for example, has a HIV rate of around 6% vs the UK's fraction of a percentage. It is simply not needed as a population wide measure here.