Circumcision classed as possible child abuse in draft CPS document

[IwantToRetire]

Circumcision is to be classed as a potential form of child abuse under new guidance for prosecutors, amid concerns from judges and coroners about deaths and serious harms caused by the procedure.

A draft document by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on “honour-based abuse, forced marriages, and harmful practices”, classes circumcision as a potential crime alongside breast flattening, virginity testing, hymenoplasty and exorcisms.

The wording of the document, seen by the Guardian, has alarmed some religious groups, with Jewish and Muslim leaders defending the cultural importance of the practice.

The draft CPS guidance states that, unlike female genital mutilation, “there is not a specific criminal offence of carrying out male circumcision”.

“However, this can be a painful and harmful practice, if carried out incorrectly or in inappropriate circumstances. It may be a form of child abuse or an offence against the person,” it adds

Article continues at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/10/circumcision-classed-as-possible-child-abuse-in-draft-cps-document

Good. Gets my vote.

We need to not pander to religions around this. It is harmful to children and if there is a god, he creates each child as intended.

How do you class something as "possible" child abuse.

Is it or isn't it?

Do they mean a skilled practioner isn't carrying out child abuse but an untrained amateur is?

How is ever not an offence against a person? Can you really argue about informed consent, then be ok with cutting skin from babies? Babies have bled to death from this. Collateral damage for a barbaric cultural practice?

Do they mean a skilled practioner isn't carrying out child abuse but an untrained amateur is?
I think that's the gist according to the Guardian article:

'The draft CPS guidance states that, unlike female genital mutilation, “there is not a specific criminal offence of carrying out male circumcision”.

“However, this can be a painful and harmful practice, if carried out incorrectly or in inappropriate circumstances. It may be a form of child abuse or an offence against the person,” it adds.'

And yet FGM is being stepped down 🤔

I don't think male circumcision is even close to FGM. It doesn't interfere with male sexual pleasure, for a start. One of my brothers and also a boyfriend had to have it done as adults (in their 20s) as their foreskin was too tight and they couldn't have normal sexual function.

I suspect it might harm sexual function if botched

If a dr does it all good if an untrained religious person or family member, i would assume.
I wish they would just make it a crime for non medical reasons

It can desensitise the head over time so its not harmless and its nothing compared to the horror of fmg but its still wrong and child abuse imho

That's what happened to David Reimer, the boy experimented on by John Money, one of the inventors of "gender identity", though in his case the circumcision was done for medical reasons, not cultural/religious. He pretty much lost his entire penis, so Money decided to try and turn him into a "girl" instead, as well as other perverted experiments involving him and his twin brother...

I suppose that if it weren't linked to cultural practices of some communities, it would be possible to just say it should only be undertaken for medical reasons. (I looked it up on the NHS web site and there seem to be quite a few.) And should just become part of having check ups.

But I suppose to even try and talk about it just within medical terms isn't going to be possible. Someone will weaponise it as a discussion.

Strangely I hadn't seen anything about it in any newspapers, but then I dont read the Guardian.

But noticed it as lead story on one of the Israeli papers that has an English version online a couple of days ago.

It is.

It doesn't interfere with male sexual pleasure, for a start.

There's no way that this can be known, though. The vast majority of men/boys who are circumcised either have it done as babies or small children, long before they know anything about being sexually active, and so have nothing to compare it with; or they have it done when older to remedy a medical problem, so of course they will see it as a positive development.

I don't know what the numbers are of adult men without any medical issues in that area who just, for their own personal reasons, actively seek out circumcisions; but I rather suspect that there aren't all that many opting for it. Maybe men who convert to Islam or Judaism as adults, but how many others?

It seems very strange to assume that removing tens of thousands of nerve endings, as well as something that naturally aids the smooth mechanics of sex, would have no deleterious effects.

You could technically say that surgically removing women's breasts would be no big deal either: you only need them to feed babies, but you can easily use formula for that; and you also drastically reduce your risks of breast cancer in later life by so doing (which is hugely more prevalent in women than penile cancer is in men, which is a reason often given by pro-circumcision people)... yet there doesn't seem to be a massive queue of women lining up to have it done for non-medical reasons, apart from some of those who specifically want to reject womanhood and believe it (at least at one point in their lives) to be a beneficial thing to do.

Easy. Circumcision is child abuse. on males or females. It's an out dated, barbaric, dangerous, unnecessary practice.

Speaking as someone with a foreskin who is quite attached to it.

I don't think thats a helpful comparison, that it's not as bad as another thing.

They are both awful, needless, often go badly wrong.

We are not talking about circumcision for valid medical reasons, the ones you mention, which are also very rare. I understand females can sometimes have surgery on their genitals for medical reasons as well. thats needed and evaluated properly, fine.

But frankly, I experience quite a lot of body horror thinking about the number of males penises that are ritually sliced up, without permission, understanding of generally, aesthetic. And at far higher numbers than FGM (I think, judging by population size and traditions)

EDIT to add - it absolutely does interfere with pleasure. I am not willing to go into the details why, but I assure you, it does.

It should be illegal unless needed for medical reasons. I don't understand why someone could worship a god who tells them they need to chop off part of their baby. All that says to me is the god is evil.

Tom Rosenthal (Johnny from Friday Night Dinner) was circumcised for religious reasons as a baby. He has some interesting things to say about it. He was the first one to open my eyes to it as a problematic practice, even for those who still identify as culturally within their religion.

Strikes me as a form of 'whataboutery' in linking male circumcision (which bears no relation to the horror of FGM) to female genital mutilation for which there is NO justification (circumcision can cure some urinary problems in boys, and my DGS is circumcised for this reason). Everything that harms women MUST be balanced by nasty things done to men because men are more important and must always be included.
Not that I think circumcision for religious reasons is justifiable, but I think no-one is much bothered except that a lot of anger and fuss is now happening about horrible practices done on women and girls and so men have to get a look in...😡

Same

I think the whataboutery is when people say "hang on, why are we genitally mutilating boys - genital mutilation is obviously wrong?" and other people say "we need to focus on FGM, it is much worse".

FGM is much worse. It is illegal. There are two fights that need fighting right now, and one can choose to fight for one or the other or both - enforcing FGM laws and introducing MGM laws.

Still, normal MGM is a lot better than what shows up when you google "new york orthodox jew ritual circumcision with oral suction herpes".

just because one thing is illegal and another not does not make it worse. I can think of a dozen comparable things. It does not help at all to say one is worse than the other, different numbers, different affects, both have huge issues with complications etc both are bad. One has a good public image lobby, one does not. The number of males who end up without a penis at all, after ritual circumcision, is not zero. Not even close to zero.

They're both wrong. Trying to figure out which causes most harm or is worse is impossible without being all spreadsheet bout it.

As far as I am aware it is pretty much universally agreed that FGM is horrific, whereas many men claim that circumcision is no big deal.

I have no problem with saying that MGM should be illegal because it is harmful, AND because of the principle of it always being wrong to cut off body parts without medical necessity.

These two different stand-alone justifications for banning MGM exist however much we acknowledge FGM being worse.

FGM usually involves removal of the clitoris. The sole function of the clitoris is to cause orgasm, i.e. pleasure. This does rather suggest that the 'cultures' which practice this mutilation think women should not have sexual pleasure but are just things for men to orgasm in etc.
Male circumcision removes the tip of the foreskin. It is said to reduce cervical cancer in women whose partner is circumcised, and is used to cure urinary problems in males.
FGM is a horrendous assault always resulting in life-long problems and pain. Circumcision is usually okay. I think it's more important to campaign against FGM which means bringing up male circumcision is a distraction.
Yes, some things that are legal are horrendous. But in this case the illegal thing is far, far worse than the legal thing, really.

I disagree not only with the facts you present but with the concept of comparing two demonstrably bad things. You can if you want, take a numbers approach with number of sufferers, the amount of suffering and over time and then compare them - but why? it's nonsensical. They're wrong, both of them.

This is a poor analogy I think, but, racism is wrong, sexism is wrong, I dunno which is worse, but I know one is more accepted and more legal.