National Secular Society calls for an end to genital cutting

[ArabeIIaScott]

'In a speech on Sunday, NSS campaigns officer Dr Alejandro Sanchez urged the government to "ensure that no one is subjected to unnecessary medical or surgical treatment during childhood", as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The "bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination" of children must be protected, he added.'

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2023/05/nss-speaks-out-at-pro-genital-autonomy-event

I wasn't aware that while females are covered under the FGM Act, male children are not. And in fact hadn't read the act.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/contents

Good luck with that one! Is it an attempt to deflect away from the female nature of extreme forms of genital mutilation or just including circumcision in the mix?

I think the latter, Dougal. Seems they're asking for additional legislation to prevent circumcision. Which seems fair, horrible to hear about babies dying over this.

They'll struggle against a cornerstone of judaism

'The "bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination" of children must be protected, he added.'

That I most wholeheartedly agree with. Presumably there would be significant religious objection to any attempts to curtail the religious practice of circumcision, given that it is expected in Islam and Judaism.

'The "bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination" of children must be protected, he added.'

It was this especially that struck me. I know that 'autonomy and self-determination' is a contested term in the context of children's health, see also Gillick competence, etc. But I thought 'bodily integrity' was an interesting term, and not one that I've heard discussed before.

Not sure why western religious traditions should be allowed to remove healthy tissue from babies’ bodies when it’s not acceptable (and nor should it be) for African traditions.
I think FGM is far worse, but imo both are bad.

I've always thought it would be much more spiritually profound and meaningful for an 18 year old male to choose to be circumcised, rather than having it done to them as a helples infant. Like you're making an active decision within your religion, as my brother did when baptised as an adult.

Male circumcision can help prevent the spread of HIV as there are cells under the foreskin which facilitate transmission https://aidsrestherapy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12981-017-0167-6
Though AFAIK that is not why it's carried out in most cases, be interesting to hear from the main faiths who still carry this out on children. As Beowulfa says: wouldn't it be more meaningful as an opt-in?

And Islam, too.

Oops, I meant to add that it was famously a botched circumcision that messed up the life of poor David Reimer (and indirectly of his brother): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

I do hope they don't try to equate male circumcision and FGM. They are incomparable. By all means argue against male circumcision in and of itself as an often unnecessary medical operation, but there is a world of difference between the two and to equate them minimises the atrocity of FGM.
FGM is never a valid medical procedure, it is barbaric mutilation.
Male circumcision is a valid medical procedure that some male babies do require - so the issue is that it is used as arguably 'unecessary' surgery rather than it should never happen.
There is no medical benefit whatsoever to FGM, it simply aims to control women and causes them suffering.
There are known medical benefits to circumcision. Most people would argue that the risks outweigh them, but they do exist and historically in a time before good washing facilities, contraceptives etc the benefits certainly did exist.
I'm all for a debate over whether male circumcision should happen when there isn't a medical necessity. And I'm certainly very pro regulation of the practice because that is where the most risks are. But it is not remotely the same as FGM.

There may be some arguments for circumcision (for health reasons), but I can't see a reason to carry it out on infants at all.

I cross posted with you there, Schrodingers. What are the reasons male infants need it carried out?

It's used as a preventative measure against certain things and there are genetic conditions that make it very likely a boy might need it. Some families/drs prefer to do it early so the child doesnt remember and to avoid the need for general anaesthetics for a wriggly toddler.

Obviously 'some children need it' isn't a reason why other children should have it done. But it is a reason why it is not remotely the same as FGM and they should be considered separately.

I can't see, among these conditions, any that would be obvious in infancy? Foreskin issues only become apparent once a boy is older, as far as I'm aware.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-boys/

Anyway, happy to agree that it's not the same as FGM.

In medical circumstances it’s fine but otherwise male circumcision is totally unnecessary in the 21st century.

I won’t even talk about what they do to females under this euphemism - that is barbaric and a horror that should be totally outlawed and people that perpetrate it should be hunted down and made to suffer the equivalent.

Like eating pork and shellfish it is a hygiene thing. So the ancients knew that it was possible to transmit some diseases from an uncircumcised penis. (Pork and shellfish don't keep well in hot countries.)

Agree totally with PPs saying circumcision and FGM should not be lumped together. It's grotesque. Yes, circumcisions can go wrong and if permitted, there should be strict legally backed rules about when and by whom they can be carried out but male circumcision is not intrinsically harmful and the intent behind it is benign. Lumping together FGM and circumcision is forced teaming in a different context.

Not just a Western tradition, either - very common all over Africa, especially North Africa.

Sorry, forgot to say I've changed username! No particular reason, just bored of my old one.

male circumcision is not intrinsically harmful and the intent behind it is benign.

Any unnecessary surgery introduces unnecessary risks.

Yes - there are risks. And you can get a bad infection from having your ears pierced or getting a tattoo or a piercing. All are unnecessary. I am not a proponent of the practice of circumcision and it may be considered right to ban it on children unless there is a clinical necessity. An adult male should be able to voluntarily undergo it.
I'm objecting to equating the two practices.
With FGM, the girl or young woman is being cut up for the sake of the men who control or are expected to control her. Even if it could be done in a totally safe and sanitary way it would still be wrong because it is intended to harm - her health and happiness as defined by her is irrelevant. With male circumcision the harm occurs if the procedure goes wrong. Circumcised men have healthy and happy sex lives and father children. There was originally a sensible, health-based rationale for male circumcision - one that benefited the boy/man and his whole ethnic or religious group.

There is a modern cure for this that doesn’t involve mutilating baby boys. It’s called washing your cock.

Exactly this.