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)

I know this is an old post but I had to comment.

I’ve always disagreed with this. FGM is basically a tool to subjugate and control girls and young women, male circumcision, although used differently, is still totally unacceptable if it is done to children - with or without their consent. The fact it’s done for some archaic religious purpose is irrelevant. We don’t stone women for adultery here and wouldn’t tolerate it. There are many things that were done a very long time ago that were part of our own indigenous culture and religion that have been rightly discarded. This is surely a human rights issue - how can it not be?!

Ppl are up in arms when babies have their ears pierced, but this is somehow tolerated bc it’s in the scary realms of ethnicity and religion. Fuck that.

Circumcision is unnecessary mutilation or body modification, to put a more sanitary spin on it. Once it’s done - that’s it, forever. How can it ever be justified?!

How can the imposition of such a significant alteration to another person’s genitalia be approved and carried out by qualified surgeons - if they’re ‘lucky’?

This should not even be up for discussion and should not be tolerated here or anywhere else for that matter - it should carry the same stigma as FGM - I’m amazed it doesn’t.

Ppl like the poster I am quoting sum up the view a lot of ppl seem to share - they don’t want to be seen to be critical of another culture or religion. So child abuse should be tolerated if it’s done by a non-British/christian parent? We’ve managed to outlaw child brides and raised the age to 18 but for some reason physical abuse via non-medical surgery is acceptable ?! What if it was part of a culture to have sex with your brother at the age of 16, or FIL before getting married? Or having your fingernails removed at birth?

I cannot understand why ppl would rather not say or do anything for fear of being labelled a racist at the expense of protecting vulnerable babies and children. But then the whole child grooming travesty highlights the gross hypocrisy we have as a society for turning a blind eye to child suffering and abuse in specific circumstances.

It has to stop.

I think it should be banned for children. Leave their bodies alone until they are old enough to make up their own mind. I say that as a mother of a child that was circumcised for religious reasons with no pressure exerted on me to do so. Something I deeply regret and whilst DS is absolutely fine with no memory of it, at the time I wish I had listened to my maternal instinct that it was not normal. I still get upset thinking about it now. I would add FGM and ear piercings to the list. All completely unnecessary in children.

I think you'd have a very different reaction if this was an American site. FWIW I disagree with it, but I'm sure research will show that screens do more long term damage statistically, yet that's acceptable 🤷🏼‍♀️

I have read that the equivalent of FGM on a male would be if they had about 2/3 of the penis removed, let alone the terrible complications FGM often causes

FGM is illegal, not unnecessary

I’m sure it was. A friend’s baby was circumcised within a month or two of birth. I had to go to theirs to drop off something and the screams I heard from that baby haunted me for days!! No anaesthesia was used and he was too young for paracetemol. So, ZERO pain relief. HORRIFIC!!

Ignorant comment alert

Probably because we know if it was an acceptable Christian and/or white practice then we'd be ok with it, because it would be the accepted norm. The uncomfortable truth.

There is nothing ignorant about it. It’s not whether the organ is functional later in life. It’s about causing pain without consent.

I think it comes down to the fact that there is no objective grounding for moral judgements. They're all a matter of personal taste and that taste is conditioned by the culture we find ourselves in. If we impose our cultural values on those from other cultural groups because we are the stronger of the two and able to do so, that still doesn't make us right. Might does not make right. There is nothing we can appeal to which would legitimise our arguments that something is "wrong". Therefore we have as much right telling Uganda that they must accept homosexuals as Islam does telling us women must keep our heads covered. It just becomes a power game - liberal tolerance is what we settled on as a way to avoid the war of all against all.

It's a reasonable question, not ignorant at all.
Maybe you should explain why you think it isn't.

There's nothing wrong with campaigning for a universal system of human rights.
There are objective values that apply to child circumcision: the denial of individual self-determination, immediate traumatic pain, risk of serious consequences, impaired sexual pleasure through de-sensitivity etc

Try re-writing your comment - substituting child marriage, FGM or stoning adulterers for circumcision. There are many activists campaigning inside the cultures and communities that you are othering.

The issue is the culture often imposes itself on people living in some area without their consent.

The baby boy getting circumcised isn't active member of the culture, but he gets mutilated for life. Yes, we can talk about parents, but they often aren't free to choose either (one of the most sad parts of some FGM document was that the mothers didn't see it as valuable, they just felt that neither here nor her daughter wouldn't be able to live in the community otherwise and they had no way to leave).

Some women aren't covering heads because they consider it culturally valuable, but because they don't have a choice.

It is hard to respect a culture which doesn't respect it's own people.

It is often a matter of cultural perception, though. Many cultures would consider it odd that you could abort a fetus (which takes away all its autonomy and ability to enjoy life) at 18 weeks or sometimes even later but four months later you forbid a fairly safe and minor operation. I'm not looking to get into an argument about abortion but you could see this point of view....

Because it’s a false equivalence

It's a bit rich to accuse me of othering while you advocate for a cultural imperialism justified by a belief that your cultural beliefes are better than others. That's called supremacy.

I think when the same people and organisations which claim to be the arbiters of what qualifies as universal human rights are virulent proponents of trans ideaology and surgical interventions which cause "immediate traumatic pain, risk of serious consequences, impaired sexual pleasure through de-sensitivity etc"

Yes. I agree. But who appointed us king and Queen of the world and entitled to impose our opinions on others

Who appointed the cultures to impose their opinions on people?

I really look forward to the day one of these cut kids sues their parents and the practitioners who did this to them.

How? In what sense?

Unnecessary.. how is it not?

I was referring to a PP who called FGM unnecessary. It isn't unnecessary, it's illegal

It’s weird to me the support for this. There are forms of FGM that are directly comparable with MGM but nobody would ever defend any form of FGM.

I cannot see MGM being banned in the UK. It’s too historical and people won’t want their “religious rights” infringed upon.

Same.

There are different forms of FGM. Some forms are directly comparable with male circumcision.